. . make sure again. these are the kind of bailout cannot continue to move forward with. >> moderator: converse wollman

sutton, 30 seconds. sutton: i would be happy to provide. you are absolutely right i voted for dodd-frank because i think that the reckless behavior you are trying to take especially in the of role on the committee that oversees these things is what got us into the problem in the first place. wall street cannot be allowed to be reinstated. it drove our economy off the cliff and people tried to punish our records but they were not the ones that drove off the cliff. yet that is where the budget goes to recoup. it's time for us to have responsible regulation that makes sense. >> thank you very much >> moderator: final question i will be asking. you have three minutes to both answer the question and then make your closing remarks. mr. renacci, you talk a lot about a bipartisan group that you are a member of, 16 members, eight republicans, eight

democrats, and devotee sutton you talk about reaching across the offer cash for clunkers. no single party can have all of the good ideas. i wonder what you heard from your colleagues on the other side of the all that makes sense, and what are you doing specifically to bring the governments instead of gridlock to the nation's capital? and i think we split ahead of time, and the first response, final response will go to congresswoman sutton. sutton: thanks very much for the question. i think building those relationships is important but it's also not just about reduce it down with, it's who you stand up for. this race is not just about who is free to be the representative from the 16th district it's going to be who is going to be represented in the 15th defeat the 16th district to read my life is standing up for the middle class and those that aspire to it. i stood up to special-interest and politicians who violated the public trust whether democrats or republicans and to protect

medicare and social security earnings that endorsement of the committee for social security and medicare. i stood up for the troops and veterans while i reached across the aisle to pass legislation in the stop-loss protection and other things as well because i know that people deserve a government plot on the back but definitely deserve a government on their side and that is what i will always fight to give them. it's who i am and it's what i'm about. i think if you work hard in this country, you should be able to make it. i recently got an e-mail from a woman that is a single mom, to kids. her oldest daughter of the university of cincinnati she talks about how she goes crazy when she sees the commercials that say things are not getting better in her life, because in 2005 her husband left her,

hadn't paid child support. until recently she was making $8,000 a year. she tried to get a pell grant but it wasn't there. she wanted to make things better for her family. but it wasn't there. she had a pre-existing condition still a lot of health care bills because she needed checkups and insurance companies were discriminating against her. they were devastating her family. she wrote to me to tell me that her family is better off now than they were. her oldest daughter is retreating from high school and is off to college. the pell grant funding that we expand it made a difference in her life. she works now at a clinic assistant patience with their daily chores and she said i love my job. i've been able to afford new school shoes and supplies for my oldest daughter and she's going to travel to florida with the marching band and i've been able to make the payments because i

got a better job. and she no longer has to ask her in walls for handouts. and she is also happy to report that she got federal aid and is now going to college making her dream as an education come true because she is going to be a social worker. she wanted to tell us her family is better off. she's doing everything right planning by the rules, and i think that there's someone on her side and middle class family in the 16th district deserve someone who is going to be there in washington looking out for them because the special-interest and self-serving politicians have left people. thank you. [applause] >> moderator: thank you very much, congresswoman sutton.

congressman renacci no single party can have all the good ideas. what have you heard from your colleagues on the other side of the aisle that makes sense to you and what are you doing specifically to bring the government since the of gridlock to the nation's capital? renacci: you talked about my bipartisan group and i appreciate that. we got about dodd-frank and the runaway train. i wasn't even in congress at that time so it's interesting. the truth about the bipartisanship is we have to work on that partisanship. i am so proud that a member from the oversight came up to me and said one of my finance meetings, financial service meetings using like a person that wants to get things done. you seem to be a person that wants to hold things together. i think it's great. can we get together. that breakfast turned into another breakfast with six guys, 12 guys, 16 people that work together, five people with legislation out there. each one of them to the middle

class, upper class, all of the american class and that's what we have to look at. but i've learned from them as you can work side by side with people with different ideas. one congressman said to me from the other side do you understand the biggest problem is the 11th year when you do budgeting? i said i didn't. it was a learning experience for me and i was able to say we need to change that. so we changed the budgeting process. these are some of the things we can do working together. and i have to tell you in closing this race is about the views and polar opposites. there is no doubt about it you heard that today. this race is about the 23 million people looking for jobs. it's about 47 million people and i have to talk about those. and the 15 million people, that 15 million people now this is what this race is about. and it's about making sure that people know the differences between the two of them. i will tell you will story.

yesterday i had the honor of going to a fire fighters award dinner. a firefighter for five years. i was in canton ohio. i sat down at the table and the guy across the table from me i was honoring his daughter and he said he told his little granddaughter you tell him we don't vote for republicans. and i thought it's going to be a tough table. so what i did is they started to talk to him. he's 84-years-old and had the opportunity to sit for about an hour-and-a-half and we talked about family and background and a lot of things. we talked about my vision and his vision. his wife was a nurse. he was in the union. we talked about the differences. and then he said you know i've heard a lot of things about you. i've heard a lot on tv. i said that's one of the problems. we don't want to hear things directly from the people. that is what this is about. it's about people making the decisions based on the differences between the two of

them. i am so proud that when i sat at that table and walked away she came running after me and shook my hand and said you know what, i've never voted for a republican. i've been voting for you this time and my wife is, too. that is what this election is all about is making sure that people get to know who we are and know what your differences are and then make the decision. november 6 this coming so i hope i will have your vote in. thank you so much. [applause] >> moderator: i want to say thank you to both of the candidates. i think i join everybody in the room based on the applause. thank you, both of you for an enlightening discussion. this is exactly the the city club is meant to be a citadel of free speech. i appreciate the enlightened discussion and the promotion of you are still interested in more information on what both of these candidates have to say, they will be guests on my

program, the sound of ideas on 90.3 on monday the 15th of october, 9:00 in the morning on 90.3 you can listen on wcpm as well and get more of your questions answered. now, jim foster from the city club. [applause] >> today we are listening to a city club debate between congressman jim renacci and betty sutton, the candidates to represent ohio's 16th district. thank you wcpm for their broadcast and for moderating. thank the audience for your questions and support and the club is now adjourned. [applause]

look at what president obama did on the budget. nothing except borrow and spend. and as a result of the presidents of the occasion of leadership, as a result of seeing the most predictable economic crisis in the country's history and not fixing at our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we leave out a 4 trillion-dollar debt reduction plan over the next ten years. 4 trillion. we've already passed a trillion of it. ladies and gentlemen, they vote against everything. no, no, nanette. not only do they say they don't like our plan. i get that kid in you don't like our plan. what is your plan.

four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. millions of jobs were lost. the auto industry was on the brink of collapse, the financial system had frozen up, and because the resilience and the determination of the american people, we had begun to find our way back. >> the president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran years ago that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more, if you will, trickle-down government would work. that's not the right answer for america. i will restore the vitality that gets america working again.

up next, look at the findings of a new public opinion poll in the

american attitude towards muslims and arabs. the polls conducted filing recent violent protests in the arab world that erupted in a film than a gritting islam. our al arabiya news channel was part of this 90 minute event hosted by the brookings institution. >> thanks for coming out on a somewhat dreary fall morning for an event that in many ways is more prodigiously timed today than it was when we planned it, because today that was when we planned it because primitive to candidate governor mitt romney is giving a major foreign policy address earlier today just to the south of casa addressing many of the middle east policy questions that we will be discussing over the course of the day. and i hope that we will be able to take a look at what the

public opinion data may reveal about the potential popularity of the positions governor romney is putting forth. but, let me start by saying the arab awakening in many ways seems to put forward a coherent narrative to the international observers, and particularly to the american public in some ways very quickly. the first few months of peaceful protesters facing off against the police forces of dictatorship gave ways to the dictators when they did in more than a violent response to a much more mixed picture of the violent uprising and elsewhere now what looks like an increasingly entrenched civil war perhaps emerging as a sectarian war act and syria.

and then finally last month, with the eruption of demonstrations in tunis, cairo, not only in the middle east but across the muslim world in protest of this now infamous youtube video, the american public began to see a very confusing portrait of the changes that are taking place in the arab world and what they mean. shibley telhami, our fellow coming and the anwar sadat professor the university of maryland, together with his colleagues at the program on international policy attitudes and i would like to recognize steve coll who is with us today. his research partner in this effort decided that they wanted come after the embassy attacks, to dig in to where the american public is on these questions

today. how they are struggling to interpret the events in the middle east. in light of the attacks but beyond the embassy attacks themselves. and so, shibley will be providing a steady with an overview of the results of their work. a new poll that was conducted just a week and a half ago, less. so it's extremely fresh public opinion data. we are going to take that data analysis and add to it some come textual analysis from some very seasoned observers, william galston of the government share of studies here at the brookings institution, seasoned observer of american politics and culture and also a thoughtful scholar on issues of religion and culture and politics and hisham melhem, the washington bureau chief for al arabiya, a seasoned observer of arab politics.

with these two gentlemen as our assistance today, we will be able to take a broad look at how the arab world is looking at the united states and the u.s. public is looking at the arab world as the arab awakening continues to create a very uncertain and very fast changing environment. so, i am grateful to all of you for coming and look forward to our discussion and at this point i would like to invite shibley telhami to the podium to present the poll. >> thanks a lot, tammie. it's always great to be here. i'm going to just present not the whole thing but some of the findings so we can get on with the conversation i will present a highlight. i just want to give you a little bit of a picture about this particular poll.

it was conducted by knowledge networks sample of 737 that is designed to be a national representative in an internet panel. the methodology is described in the information that we will put all and is also available online. i also want to say that it's really my pleasure and honor to partner to the sinnott program at the university of maryland, and a program for policy international policy attitudes and particularly my colleague, steve coll, who has a recent book published by brookings about feeling betrayed about muslim attitudes which is an excellent book but also the fact the we did the september 27 to october 2nd we didn't get the result until wednesday as ramsey, evin lewis and who put a

lot into it to get it out free quickly to measure in a timely fashion to see how the american public is reacting to the demonstrations in the arab world and the attacks on the embassy and would have consequences and look at the results and compare them and if polls related to this in the spring and one in august of 2011. there was also a chicago council june of 2012. so we have a little bit of a sense of comparison. so, clearly one of the things we were interested in finding out is how the public is internalizing what seems to be slipping demonstrations initially and very violent and egypt and a lot of commentary was those people, those people.

so, we wanted to have an idea of what the american public internalized. do they see this as a -- do they see the violent attacks, particularly against the embassies to be supported by the majorities of the arabs and muslims and about was really the first question that we had about the attack in libya and egypt. and so, thinking about the attack on libya and egypt for each country would you say that it was only supported by extremist minorities was supported by the majorities of population for both egypt and libya? and you can see here the large majority, 63% on egypt, 61% on libya believed the violent attacks were only supported by extremist minorities. so, that is kind of interesting because it was hard to know how the public was internalizing these events. looks like they are blaming it primarily on the extremist

minorities. on the other hand, when you ask about the impression of whether the government of egypt or libya tried to protect american diplomats and their staff, look at this. the majority say they did not. certainly a large number of majority, 63%. 53% in egypt and a little more divided in egypt. but still, pretty much that is the perception. is it your impression of the government -- the government has criticized that tax to again get a sense of -- we know the government ethics criticized the attacks as a matter of fact of course but the question is what is the public seeing when they are viewing the reports come and much more divided. much people say yes, identical in egypt and libya, to egypt and libya. 47 say yes, criticized the attacks, 42% say no. of the margin of the area is plus or minus 4.6%. is it your impression that the

government has tried to find and arrest? of the perpetrators. and again you see the majority say they do not. so, on the one hand, they seem to think they were only supported by the minorities. on the other hand they think the government obviously is not doing enough. now, one of the issues is aid to egypt. this has been something dow was put on hold throughout these attacks. we wanted to find out whether the american public shifted its views on to egypt and we actually presented them with four statements to see which one they support more, two in favor of aid and against. you can see we started with a statement about the ongoing negotiations of foreign aid to egypt and then we asked one statement is the u.s. should continue to provide aid to egypt

because it helps the emerging democracy as it goes through the transition. do you find that convincing or unconvincing. and you can see that overall 61% find this argument unconvincing. now, yes there is a significant partisan divide. you can see that 50% of the democrats find it convincing whereas only 22% of republicans and 29% of independents find it convincing. second argument in favor, the u.s. should continue to provide aid because it helps provide stability and it is a continuing way for the u.s. to influence. again when you look at it overall, 57% find this argument unconvincing. again, there is more democrats finding it convincing of republican but overall, it is still the same trend. now when you go into the opposite argument the u.s. should stop giving aid to the

government because it has been slow to criticize and has failed to effectively confront those attacks in the embassy in cairo. then you can find 64% find this convincing. and, you know, the majority of democrats, republicans and independents find this convincing that is pretty interesting the second argument is essentially tied to the economic hard times given the difficult economic times the u.s. is going through it is not wise for the u.s. to give large amounts of aid to egypt. so we tested that, and you can see that 74% find this argument convincing, and while it's true that more republicans support it, it is still pretty much support across the board. now, so in the end after we go through these scenarios, then we ask do you think the u.s.

foreign aid to egypt should be increased, kept at the same level, decrease or stopped altogether? you can see it's a mixed picture because what you find here is essentially 42% say it should be decreased. 29% should be stopped altogether and you can see that there's still a divided certainly across the partisan lines but the middle category is strong across-the-board including the defendants from 01 to compare that with the poll that was done for the council of affairs in june, 2012, and you can see that there is a shift and in june you

had 40% say and they should be decreased. now more of the people who said it should stay at the same level shifted to the decrease category. so there has been a shift, no question. whether the course is hard to know. what about the views of libya and egypt as countries? what is your overall opinion of each of the following countries? favorable, unfavorable? this is a typical question. we have asked a number of countries over time, so we also have a way to compare. now, we have put turkey in there as a way of comparing to see whether there is a shift where there were no attacks. and you can see that the views of libya are overwhelmingly negative and by the way we don't have a comparison. we haven't asked questions about libya in the past, so we don't know whether this has really

always been the case or not. my suspicion is yes. but, that's what it is. in the case of egypt, it's certainly divided but more people are unfavorable. and you can see over time there's been something of a shift. for example, right after the revolution in april, 2011, we did what i call a in light of the square metaphor where americans were essentially taken positively by the square issue that 60% say they have views with egypt. that already declined in august, 2011 to 40%. there is not much of a shift since 2011 actually. for over a year is roughly the same particularly if you take the margin of error into account it doesn't appear that this episode is for the views of the jet to the to egypt.

america's role in the middle east. in light of the recent events in the middle east and thinking about broad u.s. interest do you think the u.s. should increase its diplomatic involvement in the region, maintain its current level of diplomatic involvement, or decrease its diplomatic involvement? and here, you know, you have a third of the american public wants to see the diplomatic involvement decrease, but really the 46% think they should be maintained at the same level and 14% say it should be increased. now what about the democratization? part of the -- over the past couple of years we have been asking questions to see whether the american public watching these events in the middle east from the transformations actually support democratization even if the outcome is not exactly what they like as for example the winning of islamists so we were interested to see if

the evens of the past few weeks have shifted that in any shape or form and meaning that they still support the country becoming more space even if the country, you know, is going to become likely to become more if forced to u.s. policies. and surprisingly, to me it is a surprise still light and that you have 50% of the american public say yes. this norm of the supporting democracy seems to be strong even under circumstances where it could lead to outcomes that are close to the u.s.. 42% disagreed. obviously it is a divided country in that regard but certainly more people support that notion. do you think the popular uprising in the arab world or more about ordinary people seeking freedom and democracy, more about islamist groups seeking political power, or both equally? now, we asked that early on because as you know, the debate has always been in this country started about the nature of the arab spurring and we ask that from the first on the air of

uprisings in april of 2011, and you can see from here that 45% say that it was more about ordinary people seeking democracy. only 15% saying that it's about islam, mostly about islamist groups seeking power and 47% say of equal we. by august 2011, that has been the point where you can see that it's still more people say that it's ordinary, it's about ordinary people than about islamist groups. now you can see it's a big shift. i have to say a little bit of a cautionary notes. we have to use the same exact language referring to the arab uprising instead of the arab spring to get a trend line. we have to repeat the question of what exactly the way we asked it in the prior year's to have a

sense. my own sense and we discussed this whether we should even in this case change the wording to arab spring to read a lot of the problem in this particular fault is that we are talking about other uprisings, demonstrations that we are talking about in the prior two weeks and some people may confuse the term uprising with the demonstration than the arab spring, so i wouldn't over interpret this one. i think there is a trend that has declined and we can see it from april to august, this particular finding, this for the reasons that i mentioned i think has to be taken with a note of caution. the views of arabs and muslims we start asking questions about how the american public sees the arab and muslim people particularly in light of the uprisings, and let me just actually starts with a question

about the clash of civilizations. whether the tension between them as long and the west, whether they think that they are guys were from differences of religion and culture or conflict about political power and interest. and we have questions. we have asked this before as you can see from the trend line. by and large it looks like it is a pretty good system. more people think it is about a conflict and political power and the interest and the differences of religion and culture while there is a decline from august to october -- from august, 2011 to october, 2012. you can see, you know, in between there was the bbc poll in june of 2006 where the numbers for the same so this doesn't appear to be much affected by the recent events are actually committed there is a trend to be seen, but it doesn't appear to be affected

much. now if you look at the division of republicans and democrats, democrats are more likely to say this is a mostly a conflict of the political power in the interest than republicans more likely to see its but differences of religion and culture. the arab people generally you can see again there is a slight trend of declining favorable views from april, 2011 when it was 56% to 49%, but if you take the margin into account and compare it to a year ago in august 2011, then there is not really a huge shift in the views of arabs brought leah they are more favorable than on favorable, and that seems to be the case also with reference to the muslim people we have 48%

favorable and 48% unfavorable in comparison to august of 2011 it's not a huge shift at all. we asked to policy questions in addition one pertaining to iran and syria and i want to report those very quickly before we move to the conversation. one question we have in the last polls that we have done is what they believe that the israeli strike on iran would delay the program by one to two years and three to five years more than five years to accelerate iran's nuclear program, and what we found really is that there is hardly any change at all from march, 2012. it's almost an identical result. what is noteworthy here is obviously most people don't think it is going to be delayed that iran's nuclear program by more than five years.

and even when you look at it more people think that they accelerate elon's nuclear program they think what the late by more than five years, 22% to 15%. but again there is no change on this issue. what is likely in fact of the israeli strike on the price of oil 86% say that they would drastically increase, the term drastically was actually built into the question. what would be the outcome for the u.s. bases in the war? you can see that 70% think that iran would tax the u.s. bases and probably the u.s. would get involved in a war. huge numbers. now, what if israel were to attack iran? dohink the u.s. is in the position in the middle east would be better, worse, or about the same? 55% say worse come up 32% say about the same, and 8% say

better. so, the bottom line. do you think they should discourage israel from attacking iran's nuclear program, take a neutral stand, the stance to encourage israel to attack iran's nuclear program? i have to say that we had these three scenarios separately measured adjust to go through them before we give them these choices for speed. i'm not going through that just to give you the bottom line on this, and the bottom line is that, you know, there is some change from march, 2012, not a lot, that 53% said the u.s. should take a neutral stand, 29% say discourage. this, you know, you can see it across republican, democrat, that category of the neutral stance actually holding for democrats, republicans and

independents equally. a final question before we sit for the conversation is on the cerium conflict. we asked actually i'm going to summarize it, we asked these four questions separately which is whether they support each one of these things increasing economic and diplomatic sanctions on syria and enforcing the no-fly zone over syria sending arms of supplies to anti-government groups and bombing the air defense or sending troops into syria. so, we asked them about each one. let me give you a summary with a very quick comment. you can see that 60% support increasing diplomatic sanctions on syria. but what is interesting is 59% support a no-fly zone over syria as well. this is interesting because we can have a conversation about what that means, will the public thinks because you can see from

the three categories below that there is only 22% support arming the syrian rebels. and i should say on that one there was a poll that was done also in june asking the same questions. by large, the results of the poll were pretty much the same with an exception that in between there was also a cnn poll conducted in august which showed a more divided american public on the issue of arming the rebels. and so, that could be changed from august. you can see that only 22% support arming the rebels, 21% support bombing the air defense sending the troops into syria? there seems to the contradiction of sorts in the opposition to bombing syria and air defenses and enforcing the no-fly zone is

worth discussing. thank you very much. [applause] >> while everyone is getting settled, let me thank you, shibley, for the swift overview of what are truly some fascinating results. there is one finding this in the packet that we are handing out that shibley wasn't able to go through that is quite interesting on the syrian conflict. that support for the no-fly zone, unlike a lot of the adoptions varies quite strongly between republicans and democrats on the one hand who by and large favor the no-fly zone, and independence on the ever had

who by and large do not support the u.s. enforcement of the no-fly zone. and it's an interesting divide between partisans and independence on this question. in our presidential campaign when both candidates are focused squarely on grabbing the independence, yet both candidates are strongly to put forward a vision for the united states in the world but is active, engaged and both of them are struggling with the question of how to respond to this worsening crisis in syria. so with that as a bit of background, let me start with you, perhaps. that finding of independence is notable and it's also notable in this poll the american public continues to be skeptical about foreign aid in general, and about as a way of advancing

interest. given a sort of resonance reveals to the american public how can romney or obama persuade the u.s. public that they need to support a position of leadership? why do they tell us about how americans are struggling with a balance between leadership, intervention, nonintervention as they continue to see the priorities here at home? >> that's exactly the right question because i think that struggling with ambivalence is the heart of the matter. >> i'm going to offer for broad generalizations about the state of american public opinion on the questions in general, and then i will end where should we ended it with some brief comments on the syrian issue.

first, just what the make a technical pulling no -- polling note and this is a survey of adults. it's not of registered voters let alone likely voters. so, there are some -- there are some differences as to propose the increasingly demanding screens on adults, and these results will probably pick up more young people, more people who are more weekly connected to the political system, and in this election year i think that difference between adults and actual voters may turn out to be meaningful. okay. falcon onto the main event. first of all, what i characterize overall public reaction to the arab spring and its aftermath as we did in this survey? i would say people turned out to be reasonably well informed on

the basics and some would say surprisingly well-informed. the response overall moderate, nuanced, clearly influenced by domestic economic conditions there is indeed as the question suggested a possible wariness for the cost of engagement in the middle east but not to the extent of wanting to disengage altogether. nevertheless from this survey and other surveys i think one can reach the conclusion the theme that it's time for some nation-building here at home has more than a low resonance with the american people. secondly, and this also i think response to the question. americans are deeply ambivalent about these events. let me try to characterize that as simply as possible. americans simultaneously like

democracy, and they like to be liked to read the arab spring at least in the short term is forcing them to come to grips with the fact there may be tension our contribution between the two primal american desires. the arab spring is forcing them to choose at least in the short term because it is overwhelmingly likely we've already seen this the space government will amplified voices that are skeptical about american foreign policy in the region and perhaps even skeptical about american culture and american political arrangements. will give a voice to the old folks that would clash with hours. example, free speech, authoritatively stated by the president and mr. morrissey in his address in the united nations. there is i would say in the face of this ambivalence in a narrow

support for democratization, 1542 is not overwhelming. and there is obviously the response to cognitive dissidence on the subject and should be pointed out the percentage of americans thinking that the air and spring is of freedom and democracy then struggled from power by two-thirds in the past 16 months that is significant. generalization number three given my own study of american foreign politics i wanted to underscore at this survey showed signs i would have been amazed if it didn't about an acute partisan polarization on the basics of american policy. foreign policy. if american politics ever stopped at the water's edge, it no longer does, and let me just give you a few examples from the survey. because of the tolerance

inevitable the proposition endorsed by 50% of republicans and 40% of democrats the clash of civilizations as the prism through which the events in the region republicans endorse it by 56%, only 36% of democrats agree. uprising in the arab world of the islamist groups seeking political power, republicans, 55, democrats, 40. this even extends to the way people see the fact. the egyptian government tried to protect americans. 54% of democrats think that the government did try to do that only 25% of republicans. the egyptian government criticized the tax. 65% of democrats think the egyptian government did that but only 36% of republicans. i could go through the rest of the survey and illustrate these partisan so the proposition that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts

well, how 20th century that proposition saenz. [laughter] the fourth generalization the starts to broaden out if i read this survey as is revealing a shaky foundation at best for a strong relationship between the united states on the one hand and the air and the muslim world on the other come american public opinion is divided down the world down the middle on both arabs and muslims and arabs 49 and 47 and muslims, 48% and 48%. unfavorable is as shibley pointed out the attitudes towards nations with egypt and libya that have moved in a democratized direction in the past 16 months and have become more so during that period, and 42% of americans now endorsed a

clash of civilizations still a minority but up from 26% just a year ago. so, these trends it seems to me are not positive from the strong relationship. i hope i'm wrong about that, but certainly these numbers are suggested of accurate trends. finally, as promised, syria. there is, as shibley pointed out a strong majority supporting a no-fly zone, and i suspect the fact that the libyan no-fly zone turned out to be almost cost free from the american standpoint is influencing the judgment. bye contrast, i have to say i found this an equally surprising finding only 22% finding arming the opposition. one might speculate that is a valid result then it reflects americans' historical experience

in the blow that can afghanistan where the weapons that we distributed to the anti-soviet forces were then turned on us and people that supported our cause and elsewhere. overall -- and i will in here because it seems where this is where today's debate is going, there would seem to be a public predicate, public opinion for a somewhat stronger american stance in the syrian conflict than the obama administration has reflected. governor mitt romney's speech today is almost certain to raise the point whether it will raise it in a way that captures the public imagination and strikes them as sensible remains to be seen. but i would say that this survey and governor mitt romney's speech plus development on the ground may be the entering wedge for what i personally regard as

an overdue public debate about what the united states ought to be doing in the syrian conflict. >> thank you so much. let me now turn to the apparent polarizations of the u.s. public opinion on foreign policy issues. perhaps not surprising for weeks out from the campaign in which the foreign policy has surprisingly begun to play a significant role in the campaign but what we see in the arab world is with the emergence of more space politics, polarization as well. a around a number of issues that relate to the relationship, the interaction between the states at transitions and the united states in the west more broadly. the result that americans seem to understand without the islamist struggling for power is

suggested perhaps of media reporting but the sense that future of the air to get arab world among islamists. indeed i think that many commentators, yourself included, in the wake of the attacks on the embassy's have made the point that this was to some extent an argument among the islamists. the states and transition unlike the states of eastern europe don't have a clear model that they are driving to words. it's not clear what they want to be. can you talk a little bit about what the dividing lines are in the arab world and how they relate to where bill ended up, the foundation that exists here what is the foundation look like in the transition state for building a relationship in the u.s.? >> let me say first the american

view i wish i could say the same thing but the general view of the united states and the arab world has been for many reasons. i talk to a group that still sees the united states on a fairly as the omnipresent power, and since the arab states since the second world war what we called the liberal era have been moved by a collection of dictators, lack of freedom and only a few islands with freedom of expression as lebanon before for the dependency to believe in ulterior motives and what not,

and i hate that term, the arab uprising. we have not changed that yet. there's also a legacy of conflict between the united states and some arab states. the united states engage with libya, syria, iran, in military confrontations and the united states is playing a role in yemen and somalia. so there is that legacy. and the deeper legacy which is the of resistance in the arab world because of the traditional support for these autocratic regimes to it i remember -- just think of the spec second inauguration speech of george bush when he admitted for the first time as an american public that for the past 50 years we, the americans who vote

republican and democratic administrations looked the other way when we were violating the basic rights of their own people and we did nothing in the name of the free flow of oil, alliances against the soviet union and the bush says in that time and after that we see what happened and what led. so there is that legacy and of course the legacy of what most arabs see as the unconditional american support for israel. we should keep this in mind when we discuss how they see the united states. unfortunately, they study the modern history of the arab world would tell you that in most we 1967 what existed in the arab world and i would even say beyond the muslim world watches that closely but have been assisted in the world use to durrell towards the united

states and the 1960's i see the growing ridings about the united states people who emigrated from the arab world and the united states would talk about the legacy of the american education and the american university in 1965, the american support the rights of the people in the first world war, decorations, all of that. so, it's not in the genes of arabs to be anti-american. now we are talking about a number of other states to ring true transition. let me remind you of the background when you grow up and change a little bit, but that

description and you've heard me say that before, i would quote a great italian philosopher who said the crisis consists and the new is not born yet. in this revenue the great variety of symptoms of peace. a great variety of symptoms of peace. when i look at benghazi in cairo and what is happening in syria i see a great variety of symptoms appear and will continue to appear for a long time. we don't know, as you said, where we are going. there is a transition from now the transition in egypt and indonesia and libya and hopefully syria very soon.

but where we are going, we really don't know. and this is going to take years. let me quote another. sometimes decades passed and nothing happens, and sometimes in weeks decades happen. so 18 days in cairo. after decades of stagnation a great deal of change started. it began. that's why i don't care what the revolution were care about anybody calling it a arab spring. this is an uprising and its way very well-established political party and revolution if you want come agent of change. there was not led by one, you know, on ideological narrative.

it was begun by an islamist although as i suspected they hijacked later on. now they are in charge. the society of islamists, respect islamists and they are not one of them. don't worry. the muslim brotherhood will end up with 25%. 35% at most. we have no idea this is no critique of the economics for academe but they deserve some poking every once in awhile just to be reminded.

.. and, you know, and think about the future and demonstrate. that's change. the in egypt, i love them, they are like my kids. they demonstrated, in politics the organization means and understand that, you know, that politics is coalition. so now this -- and one last

part. what happened basically after the video and the reaction in egypt and -- and the administration rest of the arab world. this is not about religion. we are not engaged in theological disputation. [inaudible] something from the crusade to post colonialism. it's about political power. it's about economics. it's about control. what happened is that essentially a stupid video by a bunch of identity yachtic people in california, nobody knew about it. it went on the internet, and somebody in the islamist translated it and a plethora of out of control television stations in egypt.

and want somebody to explain it and comment on it and engaged in whipping up frenzy against the christians and egypt and all of that. they grabbed it in their own competition with the islamist which is in egypt. the country who happens to be the muslim brotherhood use it also in a competition with the -- so here you have the two made islamist group compete in using this issue as a pretext, as an excuse in their outgoing political sites. it's a political issue. some day issue -- [inaudible] it was indeed very troubled. when after it organize hezbollah and guys in big campaigns --

[inaudible] very defensive position in today. he needed that pretext. sensing in pakistan, the same thing in afghanistan, you know, talk about the stupid against the prophet mohammad or two years ago jones and whatever in florida who decided to burn korans. the same thing about political power. and every time the secretary of state or the president of united states tell us that the -- or that jew day -- and entering if to scare the crazy universe of these radical jihadist. i believe every religion has their own -- don't worry about it. it's a huge mistake. it's a political issue, imtime we say -- with the radicallists in those societies we're entering in to this crazy

universe and we lose. this is not religious we're not being engaged in religious, we are dealing with societies that are weak, that have been mar januaryized, bruttizedded pulverized by other people and the arab remember the gluer days watch the rest of the world today in a globalized world if the world is leading them behind. and this is -- this is it. this is it. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i'm going to ask one brief question that i hope you can all tackle briefly before we open it up to the audience for your questions. and i think that you ended in a great place hisham melhem because fundamentally the

arguments are not religion they are about politic and powers. as bill noted americans seem to recognize that at some level. ly say that although americans like to be liked, they seem to admit on this set of issues of degree of pragmatism. and i wanted to ask you shibley telhami as one of the authors of the poll where that's an accurate lesson to draw from the data we see. and how to you expect the next american president will be able to build on that, if so, you know, i have to say, we had an election in venezuela yesterday. i woke up this morning thinking about latin america. the united states is not very popular, and has not been for a long time. for many of the same reasons that hisham melhem noted with respect to the arab and muslim world. yet the u.s. engages in a wide

variety of fairly diplomatic relationships with latin american states. the tension between wanting to be liked and now -- knowing there are pragmatic reasons -- how is the next president -- what policy will the american president will be able to put forward and get public support for. >> thanks, that's a great question. i want to say one footnote to bill said about the methodologies, people who feel that this -- it is a nationally represented survey. what they do is have a scientific random selection of telephone numbers as well as addresses and people who don't have the internet connection, they provide them with a computer and connection and people who don't speak spanish they provide them with a translation. it's all online. >> i was not questioning. >> just the relationship.

>> by age as well. >> no. that's not the point. >> yeah. >> what i was making there's a differce between polling the university of all adults on one hand and polling people that are . >> in the presidential . >> that's a problem. >> but also i'm sure it's representative. >> anyway, that's a methodologies question for those interested. it's out there. we can look at it. it's interesting, the result that you said, i think is right. i think that, you know, given what we have seen and what, you know, shibley telhami said a lot of americans have to be frustrated watching this taking place. shooting at the embassy the kind of outcry and demonstrations and yet, they have -- they do have apore to -- appear to have a nunsed interpretation and along the lines that hisham melhem suggested it's being used by

political tool to people who are competing with each other where there's a extremist and somebody else. it actually the public does have that interpretation. i may also add if that's if you look at the muslim public hisham melhem is right, obviously, that antiamerican views are provaiive against -- we measure it know it's pretty consistent it hasn't changed much. there are attitudes in muslim societies even on issues like this. one of the interesting thing is there is a, you know, that world public opinion actually did a poll in 2009 among muslim countries trying to see whether in principle they support the freedom of speech who criticize religion or think that countries should pass laws against people who attack religion. and they were major differences,

i mean, majority in egypt and pakistan wanted to see people punished for attack on religion. and majorities in turkey and afghanistan wanted to see people have a right to criticize religion. there are differences across muslim societies. it's not the same. we have to keep that in mind. one final note, which has to do also with interpreting particularly attitudes on syria but broadly if you're ab american presidential candidates, what do you say in i'm not sure that we were built on this urge of americans wants to do more on syria. i don't agree to that necessarily even though it's -- i want something done on syria which is separately. i'm not talking about myself in terms of tsh i'll not sure what but, you know, -- [laughter] that's not the story. you know, i mean, it's hard to see all of?

, you know, bloodshed and not thing to do something. if you look at the american public, it's consistent overwhelmingly as opposed to -- the aberration to that, and if you look particularly at the opposition to arming the troops this is understand the slippery rope that, you know, kind that resistance to engage in another war you have to look at the no-fly zone as something as an aberration. it's an intrerption. is it costless? libya was almost costless. i'm not sure make a lot of that. but i know a lot of people have discomfort no doubt, we all have discomfort. it's hard to watch death and direction on the scale we're watching and saying i can't do anything about it. that's there. but even bigger than that, i think the pub slick retisting see it past to take america to

war. i think that's pretty clear. >> if romney is as reported arguing for greater intervention today, he's facing an uphill climb. >> you can see only 22% support arming the rebels in this poll, but even worse for him, the opposition among the defendants is even greater as you might expect with the -- but if you're looking. it's very interesting, you know, to sigh how the public will react. my own views, if he were to make that announcement and have a poll tomorrow it will increase in the support for by vir chu -- virtue in the fact that the score supporters want to support it. it wouldn't be a question that we are, you know, the leadership does count for something. >> right. >> in the particular case. it sways opinion a little bit but not enough to make a difference for him because it will be mostly his core supporters. it wouldn't be the swing

voters. >> thanks. hisham melhem is there room for a sort of pragmatic interest-based american engagement role. would that receive a positive response? >> i'm a big believer in american engage in the arab and muslim world. i'm also a big believer -- under the united states can do. from military interventions or provide a certain -- political support, economic support. [inaudible] by the fact it would be the -- to stop the boss knee bosnia on the european soil people would be soiled because of their ethnic and racist background and they did nothing. europe should live with that shame for a long time. only until the americans can -- [inaudible] it's not pretty that only the

americans could intervene and stop. it. so i'm great bloafer in believer in the . >> disposable nation. >> the united is independenceble power. that's it. the issue should engage don't engage in the arab world. the united states should enhance in the long time alliance with the people in the arab world and the muslim world who share with the united states certain values they believe it serves their own interest to have a good relationship with us. they believe it's their interest to be part of the globalized world. they believe that their own interest to have good economic and political relationship with the united states even though we disagree with the united states. i mean, one of the god things i think like is the majority of americans still believe that democracy in this country -- transition or in the arab world

-- [inaudible] in turkey and the rest of the arab world. you have a more democratic system in turkey. they support even when the turks were the democratic governments. i'm not -- [inaudible] to the united states. this is the nuanced thing that i was talking about. we talk about governments in transition. as a political fact islamist are charged. let keep their feet to the fire. let's engage them and, you know, engaging means that you deal with them, you cooperate with them, and you keep their feet to the fire and pressure them. let me be blunt. countries pressure each other. united states impose sanctions on country nas belong to canada and france. let not kid ourself. in the international relationship -- [inaudible]

[laughter] each nation we are -- [inaudible] but there are people in the middle east who are supposed to be anatural allower. maybe along them is some islamist. i wouldn't hold my breathe. but to engage them. a country like jipt which is a key country. it's been there for 7,000 years. they have huge problems, they are still but have to face the fact that they aren't poor. they are marginnized themselves. egypt used to be the -- in the arab world for 150 years. for fifty years under mubarak jipt became egypt became a power. [inaudible]

but follow certain rules too. they shoulded in the be any country -- and that's the process. i happen to believe that ideal war we shouldn't give egypt one thing. it's not an ideal world. we have to deal with it. when they wait for thirty hours as far as reaction the american embassy is strong, and the first reaction is silly, you know, based on facebook [inaudible] start by denouncing the movie. it ends by asking the embassy to end and pursue the people. he just say the in passing as a state, of course, we are supposed to protect private and

public property including foreign litigations. there was no word about the embassy. there's no -- [inaudible] with the nation. there's no word on accountability. nothing. i mean, you know, -- [inaudible] and i think i was flabber gaged because the president of the united states, when he made the comment didn't say a word. and the initial reaction to the united states was appalling too. and we did not -- [inaudible] denounced the fact that dmorn strait for something government has nothing to do. and we didn't denounce the fact that the leadership in egypt didn't say anything. >> you said -- [inaudible] of course it's a minority people. it's always a minority of people. you think a majority of people would storm the -- [laughter] a majority in russia would --

[inaudible] and the revolution? a mirnlgty of the american fought the british for independence. hell no. there was one -- [inaudible] so it's not the minority -- minority what the intelligent yule and the academic and the journalists say when this thing happens. it's not -- i can deal with the mob. but who is in charge of the country who is myself or what happened. -- who have the guts to stand up and say . >> okay. so just. >> i want to just follow up i know . >> quickly. >> have a questions. a couple of things one on the foreign aid, first of all before morsy. i mean, part of the thing that we have to understand is that actually the egyptian public

doesn't want to see it. the american public and the egyptian public. who are wishing for aid? it's primarily government agencies and bureaucracy seis. they have a lot of interest in that. >> could it be -- . >> and generally even in congress how are we going per sway people in when we send people from the pentagon we need the aid and the relationship. we it sways there too. so both -- the audit is not the public on both sides pushing for the aid. it's the agentings, we have to keep in mind it's self-interest. on the issue of morsy and what we should be doing, i have to just differentuate two things. one is i absolutely agree the u.s. has to e protect it and make it clear. no question and the president called morsi and said it's unacceptable because obviously regardless it doesn't matter what osteoporosis is happening. it's a redline.

on the other hand, we can can't in an environment of that sort. you said how transitions are unpredictable and claims of -- i don't remember the term you used but when you the outcome is not decided. there's a battle going on in each one of these countries and if you don't weigh in diplomatically and and economically need be the outcome isn't going to be your liking. it's an -- you can't do anything about it to fall back that. knapp is a mistake and i think panic is the wrong strategy. >> okay. i think those are two strong endorsement for the interest-based approach. i think the challenge in the democratic society are as well as on the other side whether you can sustain support for a approach. love has nothing to do with it.

>> well, i would like to csh [laughter] you know. i i know you love your life. >> i know the time for questions is getting short. let me be brisk. i'll make three points very quickly. first of all, building on the sen federal -- centrality on egypt in this country, as a naive american one of the thing i learn from your survey book in recent years is egyptian public opinion is closer to pakistani public opinions than most understand understood. and that, it seems to me, is an important predicate going forward. i absolutely agree that continued engagement is a central but we have to be clear eyed about what we're engaging here and now. and this is not a public that likes the united states and the degree of an an tip think is

something we have to take on board as one of the factors shaping our policy. and if i misread your survey, please correct me. i don't think have. the results are too vast. number one, and number two, just to be pugnacious, i do not accept the distinction between politicking and interests on the one hand and culture and religion on the other. i think that's a false start to the discussion. and i do not buy the proposition that an egyptian public an free and fair election gave more than 75% of the vote to this islamist family that you quite properly refer to. that wasn't a reflection of some

minority manipulating public opinion. that is public opinion. that is public opinion, and there is a important religious component to that. and one of the things that is important to the religious component is a concept of blasphemy. that was purvey sieve in the western world five centuries ago that is a religion religiously based conflict. we have to live up to. it's an argument. they're being manipulated. i don't believe that. i just don't. and i would like to be wrong but i adopt think i am. >> okay. with that, let me open it up. we have about fifteen minutes and i certainly appreciated the engagement. i are also appreciate it if you

keep your questions brief and to want point. and identify yourself before you ask. why don't we start here in front. hi -- [inaudible] how much influence did the impact the american -- muslim compare to the angry reaction to the movie and would the views impact u.s. policy regardless who wins the next election? >> you're directing it no to scare anyone in particular? >> i don't quite understand the final question. the bottom line question is . >> how will it affect -- voting. >> use american toward muslim and arabs impact the policy regardless of who wins the presidential election whether it's romney or barack obama. >> one point about importance of issues. i happen to think that foreign

policy isn't much of an issue in our election anyway. even though it has, you know, that recent have increased today. romney is giving a speech. by and large it's not likely this late in the day if there's a war on the scale. to have much of an impact. we haven't talk abouted is how people rank the issues. we do have a couple of issues in the poll about the ranking the issue of rlings in the muslim world and the israel issue. people rank it in the top five, but in an open question, not terms in comparison to other issues if you put in there. an republicans oddly enough, tend to rank a little bit higher than democrats. and maybe that's one thing that romney is doing. what would happen if there is an eltion? obviously, if let's say make a difference between romney and obama on this. i think two points.

bill made a good point early on how democrats and republicans are operating out of the two different paradigms about the relationship with muslim countries. and you can see in public opinion. the constituencies -- they see it more a civilization that is complex. it is per vai stiff it you -- pervasive. there is a philosophical difference the constituent separate from -- second, i don't know what romney will, you know, has in mind. we don't really know exactly what kind of foreign policy, but the people who are tashed are more or less the same many of the same people who are on bush before. so i suspect that we would expect something wrong on that line. >> okay. what i'm going do because time is short. is take several questions and come back to the panel. so why we start right behind you. and the lady here on the aisle

and go across this way in the purple shirt and the lady in the white jacket. >> hi, my name is [inaudible] the university of california santa cruz student. and in regards to intervention in syria or with the u.s. policy should be in sir yab how do we account for lower level tiers of followout if we decide to intervene, for instance, the 13% alawite population that affiliates itself with the assad regime. what do you them will happen to them? do you think it can be foreseen if we decide to intervene in this changing government? >> thank you. and can you just send the mic. there we go. >> yes. . >> please identify yourself. [inaudible] from the american university of bay root. i want to ask -- [inaudible] that the 75% of what is -- [inaudible] the islamist party is not because islamic party because in egypt for 17 years not political

parties. so the islamic party became more political. [inaudible] in to the system the political system. it's more political than islamic. and for hisham melhem mohammad -- what happened during the demonstration in egypt. he was in the -- [inaudible] visit to the european union in brussels and immediately said i'm against that -- [inaudible] but also we don't accept in cairo the frustration to attack the property, the diplomatic -- [inaudible] and i'm sorry against it . >>caller: pop. >> enact a law to stop the abuse of the free speech against other religions. >> okay. >> so a question the possibility

of collapse maybe norm established at the u.n. which gets to the point you made, bill, about the fact it's a deeply seated value in a lot of culture. we go here and to julie. >> thank you for your insightful presentation. >> your name. >> [inaudible] and my question goes to mr. mr. hisham melhem. said that the muslim brotherhood is probusiness and socially conservative if i recall correctly. what where does it exactly place the next administration here in the u.s. and american perception as to how they actually perceive the muslim brotherhood or the freedom and justice party and specifically as far as being a unique element -- such in the family or islamist as you put it and as your emphasis it is politics and economic not necessarily religion and culture. thank you. >> maybe the republican vote piers. you can hand the microphone right in the -- thank you.

my question for doctor, i'm wondering how much being informed -- have you been able to look at responses the difference between sophisticated an novemberist when you provide more information, for instance, instead of talking about egypt's role and stability on a question like that, you said, you know, jipt a-- egypt allowing u.s. warships to go over the suez canal when you ask questions that way, does it end up affecting responses? >> we are four fascinating questions. i'm going start with bill and give shibley telhami the last word. >> let me respond to a couple of that i can confess, you know, when the young man asked the question, i had a response very

much like tammy's. muslim brotherhood, probusiness have been socially conservative. do we have a party like that in the united states? and apparently we do. and so perhaps they'll make beautiful music together. [laughter] if mr. romney is -- [inaudible] if romney becomes president. let me respond to young the question that was directly addressed to me. i think the question raised a important point. yes, you were absolutely right for decades the muslim brotherhood was the only game in town. and the muslim brotherhood, of course, it was not exactly welcomed by the egyptian government whether it was

mubarak's open arms. it was harassed, suppressed, jailed, et. cetera. but it was there and so it has much deeper roots in egyptian society than the groups of sec that secularist, liberal intellectuals and et. cetera. and it is entirely possible that over time as the newly empowered islamist party come face to face with the reality of governing a country, that they will respond to that and various ways, and if they don't master the very real social and economic problems, the egyptian public may shift the views over time. so i am not saying that the current political configuration

is letters of jade, you know, carved in to tablets of stone. not all. that can change. but at the same time, i think there's a lot of evidence to the effect that egyptian public opinion is deeply conservative on the range of religious issues. it's not an accidentally. i don't expect that to change. and to the extent there are aspects of western culture including freedom of speech that went up against deep seated religious beliefs. rebelling use beliefs which i can respect even if i don't agree with them as a political matter. i think we will have an ongoing tension with that set of beliefs. we being the united states, not

just the american government, but the american people. because we believe in freedom of speech just as deeply as people -- many people throughout the muslim world believe in the idea of honoring free speech essential figure of islam. and in the short term, i think it's going to be very, very difficult to, you know, bridge that dwoid whenever it becomes central to the policy dispute. i wish i could come to a different conclusion, but i think that is the fact of the matter and i don't think that is simply a consequence of the history of suppression of the muslim brotherhood. >> thank you, bill. >> it will take forever.

we don't -- and unless the syrian situation contained some by foreign intervention who was in a -- situation the lebanon in '75 and 76 and suffer. to say that not necessarily all the element do with the regime. there are more nuanced politics in syria than people are thread believe. and i think from the part -- from the american side, we should always -- [inaudible] and the americans have been doing, actually, they will help you unless you represent all -- [inaudible] in the syrian society. should continue repeated what a they are dealing with the opposition -- [inaudible] not only the concerns but the

christians are concerned and the concerns what happens in -- [inaudible] what happens 50,000 soldiers men and women and yet we have 50% of christians of iraq leading which is a shame. we're can discuss it afterwards. when he went to italy denounced the attack after the president of the united states called to him and hopefully read the riot act to him. it was appalling, period. he was exploding -- exploiting it for the own political ends. if you read the facebook page of his, it's appalling. this is not the news of a president of 75 million people of a country that's been around for 7,000 years. he was acting if he was a -- [inaudible] small time politician in the opposition. not the leader of our . >> leaving the last few minutes forum. you can see it in the entirety

on the website c-span.org. we are going live now to the center for american progress here in washington for former treasury secretary lawrence summer expected to lay out the vision for the long-term economic society and achieving a sustainable economy avoiding the fiscal cliff. it's just getting started. >> clark medal which was given for outstanding -- being for an outstanding american economist under 40. during the clinton administration, he served in the treasury department in 1995, he was made deputy treasury secretary. in 1999 he was confirmed as secretary of the treasury. he then went on to harvard, as president for six years. and then in 2009, became directer of the nec and is now back at harvard. we asked larry to come because, i can think of no more profound

thinker on the trends happening in the u.s. economy, in the global economy, what's happening in europe, and in the united states. but i also think that he can give us a particularly unique advantage point on the national debate we're having on economics in the country today. and let me say one word, i first met larry working at health care reform when we when i served on the health care reform team, and i still remember particular meeting where we were deciding the contours and levels of the health care bill. and how many people it could wofer, and in that room, which had all the president's top advisers. larry was a keen advocate for a legislation that could cover a

larger number of americans. he was arguing that it was a unique challenge that the united states faced. and he a uniquer opportunity to address it. and the fact that 50 million americans don't have coverage, was an abomination. and we should rise to the challenge. at the time, his actual words were to the room were if not now, when? ander had to -- and i had to say if i had to think back the first person to use the '60s protest expression in the room would be larry summerrers was the first many my mind. it turned out to be a keen advocate, and health care reform was advanced in part of because of his great leadership. with that, i would like to introduce larry. [applause] thank you very much. it is a great pleasuring to

here, and to see 0 so many old friends in the audience. my joy and being a cap and seeing so many friends is not matched by my joyous feeling about this moment in the u.s. economy and this moment in the global economy, which i regard as a critical junctionture and not for reasons i shall be clear on, all together a happy juncture i have perhaps counter intuitively give the discussion that takes place in washington chosen to entitle my talk beyond the fiscal cliff. perhaps we'll have a chance to

return the discussion to the fiscal cliff. i have chosen to entitle my talk "beyond the phis clal cliff" to underscore that even dealt with in the most successful fashion imaginable, we will still have critical problems. yes, it is extraordinarily important that we not fall over the fiscal cliff, if all of the fiscal stimulus -- were to be suddenly withdrawn, the consequence for the u.s. economy would almost certainly be a recession. the consequence for the global economy would almost certainly be a major slow down and the path to recovery would not be all together clear. yes, it is essential that we avoid falling over that cliff. equally it is essential that at

some point before too long, the nation put in place a long-term plan in which our debts are measured with our incomes rather than exploding with our incomes. but it is important, i would dare say, essential, to recognize that this is more economic growth a defensive issue rather than an offensive issue. if we fail, if interest rates spike, if the nation's credit worthiness were to come in to question, the consequences could make what we have been through look small. there is no question about the urgency of putting in place a long-term framework in which

spending and revenue collection are imbalanced with each other so that debts did do not explode. there have been moments in the past when it was plausible to suppose that the establishment of such a framework would itself be a substantial spur to economic growth. such a position was reasonable, even compelling in 1993. when investment was constrained by capital costs, when interest rates were highing with and there was a realickist perspective that substantial deficit reduction would be associated with a substantial reduction in interest rates that would push the economy forward at the more rapid pace.

indeed, in an important part of the economic growth of the 1990's can properly be attributed to the unlocking of economic energy that was achieved by the 1993 budget measures, that led to a reduction in interest rate, increase in investment, accelerating growth, lower capital clause, further improvement in the deficit and so forth. that approach, a fiscal consolidationization that lead to substantial growth was a plausible and compelling vision for the country in 1993 1993, it has been a plausible and come compelling vision for other countries and times in places. you cannot fall very far out of the basic. with interest rates at 1.7% for

ten years. with a real interest at the level where if you want to put your money or store your money with the government for as much as twentd years, you have to pay them for the privilege of having them hold your money. if they are going give you back inflation. in such an environment, the reduction in investment that can u plausibly take place in interest rates that can plausibly take place is limited. the impact of amount of increased investment that could plausibly come from a reduction in interest rates from say 1.7 to say 1.3 is questionable. and the quality of the investments that businesses will not undertake with capital cost at 19.7% but would choose to

undertake with capital costs at 1.3% is to put politely speculative. for all of these reasons, as important as fiscal con consolidation is as a precautionary measure to reduce the risk of substantial damage to our economy it cannot be supposed that it independently substitutes a growth strategy going fort. -- forlt. we need in the united states and we need in the world economy a growth strategy. the history of aftermaths of financial crisis, as it has been reviewed by the imf, and other international organizations is not a happy one.

take what is perhaps the most dramatic example, when i came to the treasury department in 1993, not too long after the bubble had burst in japan, it was a matter of debate among -- what the expected growth rate of the japanese economy was over the long-term. the consensus view was that active about 4%. there were to be sure pessimists. they thought the growth rate recognizing demography and the like was two and a half to 3%. over the subsequent twenty years, the growth rate has averaged slightly less than 1%. or put the point a different way.

japanese gdp is somewhere between 25 and 50% lower today than we would have imagined likely on the basis of the economic analysis that was available to that time. in the same, perhaps even more troublingly it was instructive to consider what a history of united states would have looked like if hitler had not come along, if the national security threats of the late '30s and ultimately the second world war had not come along. the unemployment rate is almost officially reported was higher on election day in 1940 than it has been at any point during the great recession. historians are not endowed -- in

doubt that after world war ii, the nation would not have elected a progressive president in 1940. whether the economy would ultimately have recovered was a proposition that was very much in doubt. there is not much to support the view that the self-equip bratted -- to return what was previously judged their potential in the wake of financial crisis is something that is very strong. i have noticed a tendency in economic forecasts boast for the united states and for the global economy for some years to forecast this year won't be

great but since we're short of potential in the future it will get better. and growth will axeluate. yet, for neither the american nor the global economy has the reality thin of accelerating growth over the last two years it has been of decelerating growth for the specific force because of the unfortunate, and excessive withdrawal of fiscal actions to sport demand -- support demand that have taken place. more over, each year in which unemployment remains high and growth remain inacquit is a year in which problems hardin in to structure problems. in a number of ways. most obviously, there was

reduced capital investment which reduces the economy's foacial produce in the future. r&d budget and investment in brand equity are always the first to be cut back by major corporations. in times of difficulty. experience suggests that those who do not work after the career of work for two years have a substantial chance of never working again and wthdrawalling from the labor force and rapid labor force withdrawal has been a hallmark of recent years. experience also suggests the data which one couldn't have studied nearly as well without the advent of big data in economics in recent years are sobering. of course, it's much harder to find a job when you graduate

from college or graduate from a high school in a year like this one than it is in a year where the economy is strong. but what we have discovered using the information that is available from the social security administration is those that graduated from high school in 1982, are behind in their careers on lower wage path with less opportunity making less contribution to the economy, and shorter life expectancy than who graduate thirty years ago are worse off today than those who graduated in a little earlier were a little later at times that were better. it starts -- stunts growth of young people as they enter a career. and for those who are concerned that right-wing concerned with

the accumulation of debt, i would suggest to you that the most important determinant of the debt and gdp ratio of the united states a decade from now will not be any action the congress does or does not undertake over the next year but will instead be the rate of growth that we are able to sustain over the next decade. the stakes in a 1% difference in the growth rates sustained over an entire decade exceed for the debt to gdp ratio mistakes inherit in even sweeping comprehensive measures for reducing the deficit such as those who were suggested by simpson and bowels. ii am under no a-- allusion that

the maintenance or achievement that brought economic growth is sufficient to address issues of equity and fairness. experience in the american economy during the 1990's demonstrates that you can have rising inequity even as you have rapid economic growth. but if this -- i'm nearly certain without rapid growth, without growth in excess of potential there is no realistic -- of alleviating the squeeze on those with little incomes. without rapidly expanding economy, there is no realistic perspective of substantial improvement in our achievement of equality of opportunity. i have lived and watched this in

small metaphor right here. they have a large bookstore right there in harvard square. at times like the late '90s when the economy is very strong and the unemployment rate is low and it's hard find people to work, they send buses to the most depressed parts of boston pick up workers in substantial number they bus in to the jobs and then they bus home at the end of the day. when the economy is muchless as strong as is the case today. they don't do that. they have no need to do that. there is nothing more poignant as a driver of education for those with less skills than

taught labor market and the need to hire extra people. and so i would suggest to you that those who assert that slow growth and stimulus and what happens in the short run is just a short run issue and what's most important is some concept of a long run fundamental. miss the crucial point. we are by allowing the economy to remain stagnant committing grievous instruct yarl skins. we are squanderer human capital as people withdrawal from the labor force. we are missing opportunitying for employment and training with for workers in their most formative years. we are running an active set of measures that discourage

investments in finding the most disadvantaged workers and we are providing limitations on the incentive to invest and research and development and the products of tomorrow. how then to think about our current situation and the strategy for moving forward? it is, i think right, to say that in is a sense we have moved past the great recession. the economy was, as i said at the time, like a ball falling off a table in january or rolling off the table in january in 2009. look at almost any economic indicators, it was collapsing more rapidly after january --

after the fall of 2008 and early 2009, than after the fall of 1929. and it is serious as what we have been through is, it is nothing like the great depression. the economy stopped, the economy did start to climb, it has been climbing. but to say we are working our way out of the great recession is not to deny that we continue to be at risk of a loss decade of great stagnation. and it is to addressing a challenge of the great stagnation that we must dedicate ourselves however this election turns out. i would suggest five central

elements in an economic strategy for spurring growth, raising demand, and moving the economy forward. first, we are desperately short on public investment in this country. no one who has flown through kennedy airport can be proud of the gateway to the greatest city in the greatest nation on earth. few, if any, have the experience of flying out of kennedy airport to a foreign destination and encountering an airport they regardless favorable than they regard kennedy airport. quoting the youth of 1960s whom i suppose i was one, i say if not now, when?

if not now, when the interest rate if a currency we print is 2.4% for thirty years. if not now, when the construction unemployment rate approaches 15%, if this is not the time to rebuild kennedy airport, when is? and kennedy airport is no isolated example. a study in nevada found that it cost five times as much if you maintain roads too late as if you maintain them on time. and we have roads across this country filled with potholes. i'll never forget when i was

treasury secretary, and i used to every time i went to a city, i would take a couple of hours to go visit a public school and talk about the importance of education and ways that probably pretty cliche then and essential have become more cliche over the subsequent twelve years, but i'll never forget one of the times when a young teacher took me aside and it was a great speech. it really of. education was important them. a great speech. how can you expect kids to believe that when the paint is falling off the walls in the classroom? when you said education is important, it's been a year since they put a -- system to the chemistry lab and kids get sick. and lunch at the school starts at 9:45 in the morning. that'sed only way they can get pushed through the cafeteria. if not now, when to rebuild our

infrastructure? how are we going pay for it? it's a fair question. here are some answers, the first answer is it's not like we're never going rebuild kennedy airport and it's not going cheaper when the interest rate is 6%. i promise. it's not going to be cheaper when the construction unemployment rate is 6% rather than 15%. i promise. ..

contribution to gdp saving it from doing it when it's efficient captures the substantial captures a very substantial part of the cost of a very necessary public investments. yet as the economy starts to grow, as the economy gets out of this phase, it will be necessary to find direct revenue means whether it is taxes is so deficient on demand. and let's do it right this time. we don't know what the economy's cat is going to be over the next ten years, but we do know that

we are going to be desperately short on public infrastructure for a decade. so let's plan our long-term investment program, and let the financing of the program very with cyclical conditions as the cyclical conditions involved. second, let's support employers in hiring workers and the employees taking of jobs. this is not the right moment to repeal the payroll tax cut. $120 billion put in the hands of middle-income families in $100 billion injected into the economy. $120 billion that enables strapped families to spend money on what they need.

and let's provide employers -- provide incentives certainly for small businesses and beyond if not for every worker they hire because that would be paying for a great deal that takes place, but when they choose to grow their work force, let's make sure that for the first year those new employers are on the payroll that we are giving employers a hand in meeting those costs. and when we are supporting employment incentives, let's begin long process of making sure that we have a system in the united states, a labor intensive system that could employ a large number of dedicated professionals that can support people, support our young people who are not succeeding right now in making

the transition from school to work, whether that be from the college or whether that be from high school third, let's have an energy debate that is defined not by war but by the end and the scope to do more with renewals. there is scope for us to do something with fossil fuels that are environmentally better and better in terms of the national security because they don't involve the dependence on the foreign suppliers of a kind that would have been unimaginable five years ago.

there is still substantial scope for increased energy efficiency and energy efficiency is no less worth pursuing because we have five more natural gas. let's stop debating with the relative priority to attach to these measures are and let's have the failures in the energy area after 50 years of talking having tried to do too much rather than of having tried to do too little. you know, as production is automated, increasingly energy is becoming a more important share of total cost, and labor is becoming a less important share of total cost, and that means that what we do in energy

has the capacity to have a substantial impact on the competitiveness of a much larger set of american firms involved in training and manufacturing that were previously imaginable. infrastructure, support for employment, support for our energy resources, a rededicated commitment and expanded commitment to increase the country's exports. all i am proud to have been part of the administration and it's something that i think has more than is often realized. its president obama's commitment to double the country's level of

exports over the next five years. he is right to be concerned about america's trade deficit. it is much healthier for america's economy, better for the purchasing power of american consumers, better for business is engaged in the businesses of the future rather than the businesses of the past. for us to move towards more balanced trade by increasing exports rather than reducing imports. some of that has to do with the negotiation and enforcement of the trade agreements. more of it has to do with traces that we make, and especially choices that we make in sectors that one doesn't always think of when one thinks of discussions of exports. there is fast scope to increase

tourism and to the united states. and if you think about it, tourism is a sector that provides a fast opportunity and jobs for those with relatively little skills. not so long ago, i was -- i had the opportunity to spend some time talking to the ceo of a major hotel chain who noted that as his senior management team have had not gone to college, and many had started working behind the desk in a hotel. our tourism industry, which we don't think of as an industry to develop were more competitive. similarly, and close to my heart, given where i have spent my life, there is no question that we are the most competitive country in the world in higher education.

if we build on that in part through encouraging our institutions to grow, expand and admit more students, and in part by changing a set of national policies that are shortsighted and counterproductive and limiting access to students who wish to take the advantage of the education that we can provide, we can increase significantly our volume of investments. that along with the more conventional set of measures can project the united states more fully and can create jobs. finally, something that cuts across both the growth agenda and fairness agenda is tax

reform. our tax reform cannot be given an explanation in terms of what social scientists call the rational actor model. it can be only explained archaeologically. [laughter] as the assimilation of a range of provisions inserted that particular moment for particular reasons. it distorts the allocation of resources, towards debt and away from equity. it distorts the allocation of resources towards financial the activities and away from productive activity. it distorts the allocation of resources to words the

consumption of the relatively affluent and away from the investments of the many. it distorts the allocation of resources towards activities that are complementary with locating income in tax havens, and away from activities that are complementary with locating jobs near american workers. it does all of that while raising less revenue as a country right now than we have raised in nearly 50 years. at a time when the population inherently increasing costs in sectors like health and education and rising debt make it almost inevitable that we are going to need more in the public

sector and not less. the tax code promotion of exports, full harnessing of our energy capacity, support for employers who grow their employment on a substantial scale and the level of demand and public investment worthy of a nation. these are five big steps that can move this economy forward rapidly. make no mistake for all of the concerns that i have expressed, for all of this year that i have described of the great stagnation two things are true.

two things are true in my view having spent a fair amount of time traveling in the 20 months since i left the administration. i would rather face the challenges in the economic area that the united states faces than challenged buy any other nation in the world. and this, what we have seen in the last five years is the power of what the economists once called the humility of causation that regular people call the vicious cycle that other people use the metaphor of avalanches to describe process these more selling so there's more selling

and something implodes process these where we can financial systems week and a financial system and so forth. but as process sees that can engage in an implosion can also engage an explosion and revenue growth, and that is why if we are prepared to act boldly in the name of growth the whole of the program can be much greater than the sum of the parts. and all of these forces of accumulative causation that have been engaged to slow the economy down than engaged to speed the economy up. it's been often said that things take longer in economics to happen and you thought they would. and then they have been faster than you thought they could.

let us hope that that is the case with respect to the u.s. economic expansion. thank you very much. [applause] >> over here. excellent. >> let's start off with a few questions and then return to the audience and start taking questions. as always, please identify yourself as we do have cameras here. so, i take it that you are not a believer is that if you that the deficit reduction -- >> look, i think that it does matter but i think that

statement needs to be qualified by at least two comments. first it's a little hard to understand how confidence matters. i played tennis. sometimes i feel very confident i am about to hit a good shot and sometimes i feel like i'm not going to hit a good shot and i am more likely to hit a good shop. confidence is causing me to hit a good shot or is that because of a confident because for once i positioned myself right and i have my feet in the right place and so forth and that's when i feel confident. some people are confident before they invest. why would the investors they were not confident, but that doesn't prove that confidence is a separate variable that you can act on. second, it is remarkable how much more people talk about

confidence and public policy when they are in washington than when they are in anyplace else. when you walk into a restaurant and say you've got to high year more waiters are you thinking about expanding your restaurant? the place is getting old, you might get more customers effuse breasted up. i don't hear many people say this in washington about the fiscal cliff. we can destroy confidence and do a lot of damage. what we do with respect to the fiscal cliff we can do it with respect to misguided in punitive regulatory policies and it's very, very important to back off but the idea that somehow announcing that something is going to be different about social security and medicare 20

years from now is going to suddenly spur people into a rest of the investment idea is unlikely. now again, i do not we be heard as minimizing the importance of going after the fiscal issues. if we fail to do it, we can make things much, much worse. but to suppose that can constitute the main part of a growth strategy at a time when interest rates are already so low and at a time when the world economy is slow so that attenuating the scope for export in pact i think is questionable. >> just to possibly clarify something else which is you are obviously arguing about the need for additional policy to promote growth. is your argument in -- in the describe the economy as needing

more growth. but we have also received new data points on employment and there's issues are not some bright spots in the housing market. is your argument that while the picture isn't clear we should continue on a good strategy because growth strategy around growth would promote a number of goods or are you more didier about the economy? i do think people may be looking to you to see how the economy is likely to go. >> i would be a much wealthier man if i was able to make those predictions with high accuracy. i do think it is fair to say

that the economy's potential to grow in normal times is in the 2-2.5% rate. the economy is now 5 percent or more short of its potential, so one might aspire to see the economy grow 2.25%, plus enough growth to close a 5% gap over a several year period. i don't think that there is any serious argument that the likely forecast over the next couple of years on the current policy even without the fiscal cliff is to grow sufficiently rapidly to achieve that objective. i think the debate is whether on which side of the 2.25 without closing the gap the economy is

likely to come down. i think two months ago one what have said the risks are very much on the lower side of the two and a quarter and the numbers over the last six weeks have been somewhat more encouraging. so you might say the risks are symmetric on both sides of the 2.25. but i think a comic statistics -- economic statistics are like the polls. it's a good idea to figure out what you think today, figure out what you thought some time ago then take the average because otherwise you're overly influenced by the latest data. i agree. >> then i will get to questions in just a minute. but i wanted to ask -- i did want to bring this down to the discussions that are happening a little bit now in the political

cycle. we have had i think tax policy has actually been an area which has had the most litigation both in the president's proposal as well as governor romney. there has been a fair amount of discussion or lack of clarity about governor romney's tax proposals, and i wondered if you had any thoughts or insights about how she could possibly achieve his goals in tax policy or what you think the outcome of his tax proposals would be. >> i have a suspicion of might come up. what magic asterisk worked in the late 20th century, loopholes to the early 21st century in terms of budgetary and arithmetic. i was thinking back on that. i attended a brookings symposium

in the summer of 1980 on the candidate's budget plans. so this is the ninth cycle where i have watched the dillinger budget plans between the two parties. there hasn't been a cycle when the challenger didn't make it look easy year than it was. there has not been a challenger who won who did not have some experience like john kennedy who famously remarked when he became president my god, it's actually as bad as i said it was. and so, there is always but i've seen it where if you parse the riss a month to do because the

six are reflected closely the challenging era is in the scholars. i see it where if you really parse the error, the challengers errors were in the hundreds of millions of dollars. this is the first time the challengers errors have on my accounting been measured in the trillions of dollars. this is the daughter of voodoo economics. look, there is no question if you do the tax cut to which the commitment was made in at least one stage that tax cut, the 20% across-the-board plus the estate tax is $5 trillion.

$5 trillion. there is no question you can't argue about it that if you look at all of the deductions and all of the exemptions assuming that you got rid of every penny and even the standard deduction for people with incomes over $250,000, there is much less than $5 trillion. so, you are talking about giving a tax cut to people over to hundred $50,000 even if you take away every single deductions and loopholes. so it's very hard to understand how you can talk and not doing that and not giving any tax to wealthy people. if you are going to pay for your 5 trillion-dollar tax cut, since you can't pay for your 5 trillion-dollar tax cut by taking at from people with income above to under $50,000 it

follows that you have to take it from people with incomes under to under $50,000 who in the political process we have come to call the middle class and upper middle class. that is elementary arithmetic. it is suggested that is just one study by the tax policy center and that there are some house six -- somehow six. two of the studies are i'm sure i am a fussy about what constitutes a study being an academic economist but it seems a modest abuse of the language to refer to a wall street journal editorial. [laughter] much less the two wall street journal editorials as the two

studies. perhaps the most thorough and careful of the studies was that of my colleague, my harvard colleague martin feldstein who was extraordinarily transparent about the analysis that he did which did establish an important point which is that if you define high and, as meaning over $100,000 you are prepared to eliminate any deduction, you could do it. or a corollary of that is if you could have found a way to have that statement be true with $200,000, don't you think he would have done it? and so, that study properly interpreted and demonstrates the point by demonstrating that you need an increase over $100,000.

that's three of the studies. then there's the studies that say i don't know the details of the plan but it might be possible to have a plan know what create growth and if we did, then we might not need that much more revenue. that's true but it doesn't seem to speak to the issue. one could go on. so it's easy to say that, you know, my plan is to eat ice cream sundaes and chocolate cake and hamburgers as much as i want. my plan is to lose 60 pounds,

and my plan is to avoid painful exercise and those are all my objectives and i am committed to every one of them. .. >> everybody is always indignant about everybody else. and everybody is not entirely wrong, indignant about their arithmetic. but this is the first time that

you've ever reached a point, people have said i'll cut spending, and then you say you haven't said what spending cuts. probably isn't that much think it is easy to cut but nobody has ever said that i'm going to finance something by cutting spending, and have somebody else say, even if you eliminate all of the spending, all of it, even if you zeroed it out, there wouldn't be enough money to pay for what you're doing. and that's the kind of situation we are in here. so i think we are really in quite uncharted and troubling territory. >> i think we would like to ask questions, and if you could identify yourself, that would be great. >> charlie clark, "government executive" magazine. after the recovery act was passed in 2009 there was some white house messaging, we would have a recovery summer and unemployment would come down below 8%. i was just one if you could

comment on why that message went out and how plausible it is seen at time? >> i think if you, i think, you know, i'm not going to go back and do insight, inside baseball and tic tac. i think if you look at the administration's forecast, for the most part, they tracked what worked in forecast of the major macro, of the major macro economic forecasters. i think there was a general unwillingness, a general unwillingness which it was sort of the thesis of the first part of my talk, persists till today, to recognize the very different character of a downturn associated with the aftermath of

a financial crisis. from a downturn associated with a more conventional business cycle. that was certainly a concern that i was aware of the time. i think the judgment that one should tend to anchor and administrations forecasts somewhere near what the consensus in a broad economic community was, was probably not in, not an unreasonable judgment. i also think that if you look, in some ways the disappointing period, relative to expectations, has been more as

the effects of the recovery act have worn off. van during the period when the recovery act was substantially in place, and certainly, i mean, it wasn't my primary responsibility to think about the likely judgment that the congress overtime, but certainly i would have expected that the economy, that the congress would have been more prepared to take action to maintain demand. if it was necessary, and the congress in fact proved to be. >> in that row. i'm sorry, go ahead. >> lord monckton with the "washington post." i just wanted -- laura montgomery. speak somehow i feel we are not

about to get beyond the fiscal cliff with your question. >> my question is about the payroll tax holiday. so you said this is the wrong time to end it, and you make very clear it's important to get our debt under control, but i'm trying to understand a little bit more about how important it is to get it under control now. i mean, if we punt on the payroll tax to we need to pay for it? do we need to be worried about -- how do you finesse the issue? >> i think i was clear, i tried to be clear, in saying that would be advantageous from the point of view of reducing risk to put in place today a program that would cause of death path and the income path not to be diverted. that would cause one to look ahead and see a stable debt

income ratio. that does not require changing the level of debt today. indeed, to the extent that one spurred growth today and put in place measures that paid for it subsequently, the result on both sides would actually be because of the rising income today and the reduced deficits in the future would be to serve the objective of reducing the debt to income ratio. even if it was, even if there was no explicit pay for today, the extra income growth that would, the extra income growth that would result, and the

extra, the extra income growth that would result, as long as measures were taken at some point to stabilize the debt-to-gdp ratio would be helpful. i think it's very important to understand, and i think in a lot of the discussion there is point about what the magnitude and the nature of the fiscal risks is. if you'll indulge me for one moment, neera, i think it was an analytic point that's often not understood. why do we have this stagnation? why are we a demand short economy? the reason we are a demand short economy is today, and we're not usually come is that usually the private sector wants to spend more than its income. so the private sector is a net borrower and that drives the economy forward. and when private sector

borrowing allied with federal borrowing from ever so so much money to land, interest rates get pushed up. today, we are an economy where there is an excess of private savings. so the energy to the question is who's going to hold its trillion dollars of debt is the same as the answer to the question, why is there to trillion dollars on corporate balance sheets? the debt is being held by the private sector actors who do not spend. and so, the deficits are a risk, but they are a risk that will come home when the economy recovers, and when the current constellation of private-sector savings being large relative to private sector spending attenuates. that's why it's important for confidence. that's why it's important for security. that's why it's important

because now we have a moment of the of urgency to put in place in program that assures that once the economy recovers, this is all going to stay stable and the recovery is not going to be aborted by some kind of spike in interest rates. but for as long, what i'm saying now is not has to do with the election despite what the editorial page says, but it is not essential that we act to contract spending by the public sector, before the private sector has kicked in and started to spend. and, indeed, to do so would be, to make the kind of mistakes that have been made in england, at substantial consequence to british economic growth and on the judgment of the british equipment of the cbo that is radically revised downward its

assessment of britain's potential output to usher in that process and validate that process of cyclical problems, into structural funds. [inaudible] >> we need to do the hard work with a long-term solution before the economy accelerates into growth. and i suspect we will. but we do not need to do it, the better to do it, but the deadline in a sense is before the economy accelerates into substantial growth and you know longer have the wherewithal of a substantial excess of private savings to hold the government

debt spent i think we have time for just two more questions. dana, right there, and think we will get over to you. >> dana marsh -- dana marshall, larry, good to see you again. want to draw you out on the international component, you just mentioned doubling exports but there's a lot more to the international dimension. maybe ask you to draw you out into areas would be a tickler interest to me. one is the effect of emergence of state capitalism and the various incentives that governments and their state owned enterprises have that may affect our ability to be able to contribute positively growth and put it back. second is may be somewhat related to that, the fact that recently us-based multinationals created jobs have arrived but more have been abroad then you.

what needs to be done to try to change that, to bring more of those jobs here? >> look, on the second, it's a broad competitiveness agenda. it goes to the quality of our infrastructure. it goes to the quality of the work force that's available. there are elements in the tax system that distort in favor of investments abroad rather than investments in the united states. i think we have to be very careful. i think there's the risk that in the name of bringing jobs home you will hurt the competitiveness of the u.s. multinational, and ultimately that will hurt the number of

people they employ agile. so it's an area that has to be approached with considerable care, and isn't always approached with considerable care. but it goes broadly both to strengthening our domestic competitiveness and incentives in the tax system. look, state capitalism is a complicated phenomenon and one that is growing, and one that is growing importance. i think -- i don't think there's really the scope year for me to talk, for me to talk at any length about it, and it's got to be confronted in certain particulars, but, frankly, i think it's more of a foreign policy, national security issue and something that is likely to be central for was an important one, than something that's likely to be said for the rate of economic growth over the next

few years. >> i think we have time for just one last question, and if you can be brief, we have to end soon. >> i'm working for a congressman from new orleans. how can we, democrats have a problem talking about deficit spending. how can we change the conversation and get the wind at our backs? because i mean, in my view history, deficit spending is kind of contributed significantly to building this country as we see today. so how is it that we can reorient the conversation to the point people what you are talking about that we have historic interest rates, our competitors are investing from the top down. shouldn't we before our interest rates spike relative to there's? thanks. >> there's one way to talk about it. everybody focuses on, when you think about deficits, they were

about protecting the next generation, and they focus on the budget deficit. but just like you could have repressed inflation, you know, there's really inflation you're going to put price controls on you get shortages and you get a whole set of other problems. you repressed inflation. if you repressed a budget deficit and you defer maintenance, pass on to the next generation, collapsing structures, you defer funding liabilities, pass onto the next generation, pension liabilities with no resources to meet them. if you pass on to the next generation a federal workforce that is not really up to 21st century tasks because it's been

underpaid and under invested in for many years, that's compromising our children as well. so managing the federal government only to the annual budget deficit is like managing a company, only to its annual earnings and a properly managed company thinks about what it's providing for the future, even as it attempted to its annual earnings. and they wisely managed federal government will be mindful of the budget deficit, but it will also be mindful of the education deficit, also be mindful of the infrastructure deficit, also be mindful of the competitiveness deficit. and we need to recognize that there are many different kinds of deficits, of which the financial deficit is only one. spent i think that's a fantastic ending for your talk today. thank you so much, larry.

[applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> look at what president obama did on the budget, nothing except the borrow and spend. and as result of the president's abdication of leadership, as a result of saying the most predictable economic crisis in our countries history and not fixing it, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we laid out a $4 trillion

debt reduction plan over the next 10 years. 4 trillion. we have already passed 1 trillion of it. ladies and gentlemen, these guys vote against everything. not only do they say they don't like a plan, i get that. you don't like our plan. what's your plan? >> tonight congressman paul ryan and vice president joe biden will face off in the only debate. abc news martha raddatz moderates from danville, kentucky, and you can watch and engage with c-span with our lives debate preview at 7 p.m. eastern followed by two ways to watch the debate at nine. on c-span both candidates on screen the entire debate and on c-span2 the multi-camera version of the debate. all followed by your calls, e-mails and tweets at 10:30 p.m. follow our live coverage on c-span, c-span radio and online at c-span.org. >> four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. millions of jobs were lost her

daughter industry was on the brink of collapse. the financial system has frozen up. and because of the resilience and determination of the american people, we have begun to fight our way back. >> the president has a few very similar to that you get when it ran four years ago. had a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulate and more, if you will, trickle-down government would work. that's not the right answer for america. i will restore the vitality that gets america working again. >> c-span debate that has video of last week presidential debate. we have made separate clips so you can search a watch by topic. it's also the only place you can see light behind the scenes coverage at each debate including the spin room. watch and engage with life tweets from political reporters and other viewers and add your own. c-span.org/debate. >> i watch on c-span the various congressional hearings and deliberations on policy, and

also information that is put out by the various think tanks here in washington, d.c. i like to watch the main interview on sunday at 8:00 where he hosts different authors and he has discussions. in a discussion about the books they have written. so it's just an easy way to get information that are in those books without having to read the books. >> wesley romans want to see spent on comcast. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> dennis ross who served as the middle east adviser to presidents obama and clinton recently emphasized that if iran acquires nuclear weapons, saudi arabia has said they will get one, too, thereby setting off even more instability in the region. mr. ross was one of the speakers

at wednesday's bipartisan policy center panel on iran's nuclear program. a discussion stem from the new release report titled "the price of inaction: energy and economic effects of a nuclear iran." other speakers include former u.s. senator virginia charles robb and the paper's authors. this is about an hour. >> good morning. thank you for coming. welcome to the rollout of "the price of inaction: energy and economic effects of a nuclear iran." let me begin with an apology, if i may. i have a board meeting in virginia this morning at which some very important systems will be made, and i'm also an infectious laugh and more than passing interest, and i'm not going to be able to remain for the entire presentation but i wanted to come in this morning to help kick off this rollout of our most recent paper. i'm here today as a member of

the bipartisan policy center board, and i have co-chaired the iran project for almost five years now, with chuck wald. there is an overwhelming bipartisan support in washington on both presidential candidates, and across the country number for preventing a nuclear iran or a nuclear-capable iran. in the public debate during the last year or so, a recurring concern has been economic risk posed by the available means for preventing a nuclear iran. whether through tough sanctions or military action. economic risks are a legitimate concern, but inaction also poses economic risks. the purpose of the paper we are releasing today is an attempt to illustrate some of the economic costs that would emanate from

the impact of a nuclear iran. we don't suggest that these will be the only costs the u.s. would bear by any means. there would be a myriad of consequences, direct and indirect, only at least some of which can be seen or quantified. we concluded simply that high-end expectation of instability and supply disruptions triggered by the prospect of the consequences of a nuclear iran would cause the price of oil to go much higher and to remain high for its sustained duration of time. significantly impacting the u.s. economy. the price spike in economic impact would be much greater if any of the display -- if any of the supply disruptions occur. we hope this paper which is a departure from the focus of most papers on the consequences of a nuclear iran, or a nuclear-capable iran, will trigger a new discussion, and

enable an expanded debate on the topic. i would now like to introduce michael makovsky, the foreign policy director of the dpc, and a former oil and list to boot who directed this effort and who will review some of the key findings, and then he will introduce our very distinguished panel. michael. >> thank you, senator robb, and thanks everybody, for coming. as the senator said, the purpose of this report is really to trigger a debate. we are not suggesting that we have all the answers on this issue at what we wanted, as the senator said, to introduce a new dimension to debate about iran, about preventing a nuclear iran you.we are not, focusing on

economics, we are not suggesting that economic issues should drive u.s. policy one way or another about preventing nuclear iran. but it's come up in the debate. it has been raised, certainly in terms of, let's say, about the impact on how tough are sanctions should and about relating military options. so wanted to say okay, let's do what this debate a little more. what are the costs of inaction. obviously, when you talk but a nuclear iran, i think it's more important consideration, the senator suggested, we have strategic concerns, the human aspect, you know, what would happen if there are competence alone. obviously, those are really preeminent concerns, but the economic concern is very legitimate and it's been raised certainly women have a tough economy as we do right now. so that's what we have wanted to try to address, and we hope, you know, we think the public and policymakers need to consider.

let me raise, it's a complex issue. it was complex for us. we grappled with this so let me discuss exactly what our methodology was and what our key findings are. our approach briefly, and their many ways you could scan this in a way, but as the senator said there's a myriad of consequences of a nuclear iran just on economics alone. some you can foresee, some you cannot. and we decided just to focus on the economic consequences based on the energy consequences. what are the energy consequences for what does that mean for the us economy? there's other considerations that are not energy related, other energy considerations. we just didn't address the industry board. so our approach was to basically consider five plausible events

that could followed nuclear iran. they could have an impact on oil supply and demand over three years. somewhere -- some more probable than others but we think all probable. the fight for greater political stability in saudi arabia, more attacks on saudi energy facilities, potential saudi iranian nuclear exchange, potential israeli iranian nuclear exchange, and also what happens actually if a nuclear iran sanctions laughter and how does that affect the oil market? a we assigned them to we took these events. we can assign probabilities to the events occurring, and then we assess how it would impact the risk premium of the oil price. then we looked at, to be clear, markets, including oil markets react to change expectations for future supply and demand. people often think, if there's a

disruption, the market is affected which i visit it is. but actually the expectation of changing supply and demand alone affects the market. and that's actually more of a focus of our report is more on the expectation. we then, what to look about how these expectations would actually affect the market, or actually some of these events actually occurred, we didn't get a macroeconomic analysis and what this would help us with impact the u.s. economy. so our key findings were these. again, you know, we have report outside or you have with you, let me just summarize them quickly. we think that the expectation of the of instability, and conflict that a nuclear iran could trigger would have these impacts. they can increase the price of oil by about 10 or 25%, which given current international oil prices would roughly mean, change every day, would roughly mean about 10 to $27 a barrel

higher over three years. prices could rise up to 50% which about 30, $50 ago. with and for years u.s. gasoline prices could increase over 30% or an additional $1.40 a gallon at the pump. and then if those things actually happen, inflation come unemployment would each, could be projected to rise about 1%, equaling to a loss of about 1 million jobs here in the united states. gdp, gross domestic product could drop by more than 1% or of outcome which equates roughly about $120 billion. if any of the conflicts or disruptions actually that we discuss, actually occurred, then the implication, the consequences would be far more significant. and let me just give two examples. in the case of let's say significant instability in saudi arabia, or a saudi are running

nuclear exchange, which in the latter by the way of all the sinners of the greatest impact on the oil market, for obvious reasons oil prices would double, gasoline prices could increase more than 70%, heading to about $2.75 at the. gdp, as much as a% in the first year or $1.2 trillion, which would mean a significant recession. inflation could skyrocket by almost 5%. unemployment increased by almost 4% which would transit into 5 million more people out of work. let me give a caveat to this last numbers. current model, current economic models are really ill-equipped to predict how the world would react. there's no precedent about it. the only president we have would an explosion, of course at the end of world war ii.

so we used to current models, and we can get into that, based on current models to some extent, that's a we came up with. but again, very conscious that the consequences would be more dramatic because we have really no precedents for this and we're ill-equipped to fully assess. so that is, those are our key findings. again, i think i do see the economic consequences would be significant, just pure the energy related economic consequences it as i said at the beginning, there at the consequees here, strategic outputs, human consequences, and that's more important. but i think it's provocative report, and i mean that in a way of constructive with your i think they should be very provoking, and to help discussed that i think with a really good panel. the first of all, we have susan glasser who is the editor of

foreign policy, will moderate the discussion. there's ambassador dennis ross, former senior obama white house administration official. currently at the washington policy, counselor. also a task force member. we have daniel ahn is the chief commodity economist at citibank, who is also a task force member, and we have stephen, former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, currently at the petoskey group was also and i task force member, to discuss. i just want, before we get to it i will turn it over to susan, i want to add two more things. ..

but this is complex stuff, and we thought the outside help was very useful. i also want to acknowledge dan bricklin in the front row who also was a task force member and who the -- and i also want to date, in particular, in my group and also jonathan willie who worked incredibly hard in a relatively short amount of time to produce and absently very grateful for all their work. i also want to think ashton and a lisa and to wind tunnel for

all of the other help. a communications consultant with us. so without further ado will turn it over to susan and sit down. >> all right. thank you so much. thank you saw all of you for coming this morning. i think, as michael said, there is a lot of provocation to throw out there in the positive sense of the word, meaning the conversation around this. we can start even with the title of the airport, the price of an action, which suggests a point of view, shall we say. and i also want to bring in dan in quickly to walk us through what the assumptions are and where you're not able to factor in. i thought i would first guard with the ambassador. perhaps you can give us the big picture levelland in terms of first of all, these five scenarios to my how likely or unlikely u.s.s. any of them to

be right now. certainly iran is in the news every day. you know, it takes a few leads to get from where we are right now into an actual iranian-saudi arabia nuclear exchange, so, you know, based on your own experience, where you see this situation right now, and how or rich uribe about any of these angeles areas? >> well, when we look right now, the characters, the turmoil speaks for itself. and we should not assume that the people that we see in the region is somehow going to be time limited. i think we are looking at what i call the arab awakening because it is an awakening from the standpoint of many people, for the first time see themselves as citizens and not as subjects. and a citizen is, they think they have a voice and make demands and should be able to the create accountability. the problem is they don't have institutions that allow them to create that accountability but they have expectations. that awakening has not really

expressed itself so far in the gulf states, partly because they have the kind of wherewithal, monetary wherewithal where they can deal with a lot of potential discontent, but one should not assume that it cannot at some point express itself in a variety of ways, and so the first point i would say in response to your question is, tomorrow it is going to define this region for some time to come because they're is a generation to play out. the second point is, there is an ongoing competition between the iranians and the saudis. we see it expressed in a lot of places. syria is a kind of focal point for that right now. but we have seen -- excuse me. we have seen that turmoil in bahrain which is home grown in many respects, but also certainly the saudis perceive it as having an iranian hand. we have seen increased turmoil with the eastern province of saudi arabia. here again, you can say there are many indigenous reasons for it emerging, but also the saudis

proceed in a radiant -- perceive an iranian hand there. here is the context. you stick the nuclear issue. i know from my own direct experience that they are -- they have made it unmistakably clear that it is the iranians that if they acquire this weapon, they will. if they get it, we get it. now, that well, if nothing else, relate to the kind of context in which this paper was being written. that immediately would create a new reality in the region. it would immediately create and expectations about the potential for much greater destruction down the road. so i would say the point of departure for the paper is quite realistic in terms of, if you're going to take a look at the thought provoking point of view, there is unmistakably a price of action. if military action were used you would see an immediate destruction. my sense is this could be time

limited. if you compare that to a situation where iran has nuclear weapons, the saudis have nuclear weapons, and the potential risk that is seen in that is going to express itself in terms of crisis. would there be a war between the iranians and saudis? obviously if they both have nuclear weapons that will create recognition on their part that there is a very high price to be paid. there is likely to be a gap in terms of time was the iranians announce they have a before the saudis have it. it is hard to imagine iran with their weapons be getting more responsibly than it does today. it is hard to imagine that they don't see themselves as having a new leverage within the region. it's hard to imagine that they don't see themselves having a shield behind which they can engage in a higher degree of coercion and their proxies can engage in a higher degree of course with a sense of impunity. so i think that is one of the

built-in scenarios that is quite realistic as well. you know, what you have a nuclear war, not about to predict that, but i don't think the scenarios, what they're meant to be, to offer an illustration that you run a pretty high risk once you have iran with their weapons. the president has spoken about it recently in his speech to the u.n. where he talked about the threat that that represents in terms of israel's existence to the stability and security of the gulf states to the global economy, to nonproliferation and the survivability of that after the regime and after you have, you know, 12 resolutions of the iaea board of governors that says they can. you have six resolutions in the security council saying the same thing. you have three american administrations that say they cannot have it, and then they have it. to think that does not have an impact on the psychology would

be an understatement. so the last point i would make is, do i think the potential for conflict if they have it doesn't immediately? i think instability increases, the notion that the cold war a scenario where you have bilateral -- a bilateral relent -- relationship between the united states and the soviet union where we actually have communication channels. we had, you know, in a sense a hot line between israel and around there is no communication of all. between the saudis and iranians the rate of the communication, but one thing that would exist is the reality where no one in the region is going to feel they can afford to strike second. no one is going to feel a like the that is states and the soviet union, that you have a second strike capability. no one there will have that. and so i think we're all going to act on the basis of having a kind of finger on the trigger. a hair trigger reality in a region where conflict

unfortunately is the norm, not the exception. and iran with their weapons would not make me feel comfortable that conflict, a nuclear conflict at some point could not happen. even if it does not happen immediately come to think that you will have a kind of stable reality and the rules of the road to find, i think that is a real stretch. >> well, clearly the lens from which this report is looking at those set of questions is not so much in the strategic or even the psychology of, you know, what a iran with a clear weapons would be, but by the numbers and specifically through the oil prices, maybe you can walk us through what some of your assumptions were as you made those speculations and also what some of the surprises were. after all, and apparently it is not particularly surprising to tell people that oil prices are going to go up in the case of increased instability or the perception of instability and

possible nuclear conflict in the gulf. ami, we all sort of get that that could lead to higher oil prices. what did you learn? >> that is a really difficult -- greed question, susan. and an interesting exercise, the report tried to look at the economic consequences. and even nearly through the lens of what would happen to the economy there just higher oil prices, we did, indeed, find some surprises. before i get into that i just want to stop with the caveat. you know, that joke being that one hand on the other hand. the report is necessarily an exercise in counterfactual is because you have to think about a world in which iran does not become a clear verses a world in which iran does become a clear

and see how in these two different universes, if you will, how the various markets, aces, households, governments would react. and for something as complex as the oil market, the u.s. economy, much as the global economy, there is quite a lot of causal mechanisms and feedback. the results in the report, while they are pretty striking and they are -- one immediate thing that leapt out of the page was the degree to which the u.s. economy is still vulnerable to a classic oil price shock, we saw in the 1970's despite all the progress of the u.s. doesn't make sense in terms of energy efficiency and that hydrocarbon

sufficiency. because this is not happening in a vacuum, this is happening as the u.s. economy is still struggling to get over the after effects of a global financial crisis of 2007, you know, most economists would consider and assuming the model that the u.s. is still quite far away from its potential growth rate and its potential rate of employment. and so while this can have pretty damaging or even catastrophic consequences in the

short term, for example, the worst case scenario where iran and saudi arabia have a nuclear exchange, by the time 2015 or 2020 comes around, that -- the damage can be healed fairly rapidly because the u.s. is in the position of already becoming healed from the ftereffects of 2007. >> i believe there is only one in which oil prices don't go up, and that is an interesting scenario under which basically collapsing as a result. now their nuclear that in particular asian partners and europeans.

why that scenario? and from both of you about how likely that this, the picture of armageddon that we are painting with the other scenario. >> as i said, i actually think this is an example. this is not that. should iran acquired a nuclear weapons let's take advantage of the need to have access, i think there will be a strong this position internationally to say they have broken all the rules. they have to continue to pay a price.

the could be one scenario. all these scenarios, by the way. when you continue you do not only likelihood, but you think about consequences. so you're still trying to measure with the consequence could be. i think it is valuable, but i don't know that it is all that a realistic in terms of reality. >> i want to bring in steven of the question of, first of all, why does this inaction? and also, your own take on how likely are not you see any of these areas right now. >> i have used on a lightly have a lot of the scenarios. i agree with what's about -- much of what was said. the -- to go back and answer

your first question, i think obviously they're could be disagreements about that and the precise percentages that representative airport, but i do think the underlying point that there is a costs, and economic costs, and measurable economic cost to inaction is undeniable, particularly after reading the entire report. and so i would hate to see -- get into a quarrel about the methodology to what is that the group lose the audience. economists might enjoy that, with the rest of us would find ourselves very lost. but i do think it is an important addition to the public debate we're having that in addition to the obvious fact that a war, u.s. military action or israeli military action would have it shipped to the fact confessors it with that it is important to recognize that this report points out that there is also price said to allow your

wrong with their weapons. that's why the commission report. the senses a very useful contribution to the continuing debate. like that the question of the cost of a global economy, military strike and those reports are out there and they can be compared to the price tag . their foot noted in this report. those costs can be compared to the costs identified here and economists can debate the higher cost. acevedo want to get into that debate myself. the point that there is a costa either direction. on the saudi issue, maybe i will just respond to something. i think looking at that scenario is really one of the more interesting ones to consider because i think dennis is absolutely right. the saudis will not -- will be

among the most concern of all the observers if iran succeeds in acquiring a nuclear weapon and the likelihood that they will feel they need to require -- acquire their own is very i. what has not been thought through is what the u.s. reaction will be at that moment, and i would like to speculate about that. if there is an iranian nuclear break out we will be on the cusp of what everyone is talking about, what president obama has talked about, a cascade of proliferation, unravelling of the regime. that is what would follow from an acquisition of nuclear-weapons. other countries in the region. and preventing that i think will become a very high priority for u.s. foreign-policy. by preventing that have been preventing the saudis for responding in kind. how will the united states to estimate we don't want to end up there, but that is where we are the moments after it becomes

clear. and willie do? one thing that we will do, and quite confidence, is to apply the cold war deterrence model and try to persuade the saudis that they don't need it here weapons because they can count on us. if their the victim of a nuclear attack that the council must respond. i think there's a lot of reason to think that we're not going to be as persuasive in making that case to the saudi government as we were in making that case to the germans and early allies in europe. i think anoth thing we will do is go to the saudis and say, we're going to keep in place the sanctions regime and try and walk back the rodney nuclear program. i think as long as we are desperately seeking to prevent that cascade of proliferation by stopping the saudis from taking the second steps, there's a good chance we can hold the sanctions regime in place. i think if we fail and if the

saudis acquired a clear weapons, what we do at that point? sanction saudi arabia? you know, i think economically it would be hard to do that. i think the likelihood is we don't. there is no u.n. security council sanctions penalizing saudi arabia for what they have done. and at that point there is a double standard issue. sanctioning 17 of the other. and put this question to dennis, but in that kind of scenario where the casket a proliferation has begun we basically acquiesce in their response by our allies. can we really maintain that what many will say is the double standard? at that point to a lot of countries throughout their hands and say, well, it was a good idea. similar to what happened in south asia. a good idea. unfortunately it failed. let's go back to business as usual. >> a great question test quickly

toward you. you have directly engaged with the saudis on this question. they have directly said to you, our plan is tech contended their weapons. so what is our current policy? what is the u.s. government current position on this? >> policy is prevention. that is why our policy is prevention. vacancy with the consequence is unlikely to be. steve raises what is a very fair point. i do think that we will make -- we would, in those circumstances make a major effort and it would fail. one of the reasons it would fail is because -- and this is not just theoretical. obviously i had discussions with the saudis. and, you know, when they -- when the king said if they get it we get it i was to be about series play with the consequences would be. after ten minutes of being highly eloquent on the subject he then said to me, if they did we get.

so there is a reality here that they see their main competitor from every standpoint coming to the religious standpoint having an advantage over them, having to you know, a technological advantage, military advantage, the potential for leverage in the region. they're not trying to accept that. and i think the reason our policy is prevention is because we understand what the consequences will be if we don't succeed in maintaining and producing. that is the point of the containment. containment does not prevent the saudis for making this decision to go and into that. and our ability to persuade them along the lines of, look, you can count on our insurance, i said before, the obama administration would be the third americans administration that said they cannot have this. so right after they acquire this after three administrations have said they cannot have it we will go and say, never mind that you

can except our assurance. well, that's not going to because we have already said to not hold. so the reason it is so important is that containment will fail if it comes to at least that measure. >> quickly because i do want to get to mike on both the title of this report and what you think it implies in terms of policy. quickly. steve referenced the studies that have been done and the price of action. can you give us a sense of what does have been and have the compare with your own? >> yeah. certainly. the literature on the relationship between oil prices and the economy is a long and rich one. that is still ongoing. and there have been studies which have minimized the

consequences. arguing that the main angle by which the damage occurs is not so much through the higher oil prices for say, but rather due to the general inflation that it unlaces and the forcing of the federal reserve to hike rates and cool down the economy to combat that. >> you are not talking about specifically in the case of a strike on iranian facilities. you're talking in a general sense about an oil price shock. >> regarding the strikes on the nuclear exchange or strikes and facilities perce, it becomes a lot more challenging then i think this study has -- a fairly pioneering one in terms of trying to put some hard numbers on the actual economic consequences. simply because it is very hard to win the coming to get a good

grasp on how the psychology of markets is going to respond. and if you -- even just like that of the oil markets have responded in the past few weeks with seemingly unexplainable spikes and drops, no less than three or four times in the last two weeks alone, you begin to grasp just how complex it is to make an assessment in -- these markets themselves don't exactly know how to price this sen. i want to make one more point that i think might be a useful segue to your question to mike about the price of an action. the -- one scenario that indeed we did was the study of what happens if we let sanctions lapse. but, you know, we take as the

existence of a nuclear iran. that would bring in a whispering it to the oil markets, and it would be a kind of difference than in actual exchange in the sense that you might see an immediate destruction that causes oil prices to spike, but all of that eventually reverse his command that, by the way, getting back to an earlier point that i made, means that ultimately the u.s. economy will try and claw its way back to full employment and therefore have some positive growth impact after the initial damage has been done, and that was what i was saying was surprising. but in the case of a permanent risk premium that enters into markets because now they understand that there is this much more significant risk that there can be a much more devastating scenario if tensions

escalate in the region. there is no way that the u.s. can fully recover from that kind of permanence, you know, permanent paradigm shift in the oil market. so getting to that price of inaction, there is a very seamless price of an action as well as price of action, which is why obviously this is such a complex and difficult topic for ambassadors to try and tackle. >> so, in your old hat as well as in your current policy had, the price of action verses in action, your thoughts. >> well, as steve mentioned a few minutes ago, we said in a report and other reports that of come out about the cost of military strike.

we said one report by the group that surveyed 25 experts and said this is low prices would do if there was a military strike. we also site recently a report that actually said that the cost actually would not be that night , that oil prices would not spike that high if there was a military strike. estimates vary. some say the cost would be very high, others said it will not be as high. basically we have some command this gets to your point about why we tell the the price of an action. because those -- generally in a debate and not only so much -- someone in the financial world, but to family you read in the op-ed pages and editorial pages among politicians and so on that people bring up the economic argument, it's usually about the cost of action. so if we have a really tough sanction on a wrong which we have right now, and this was a

big debate months ago certainly before the banking sanctions that passed, and there was a back-and-forth about that. you know, the higher oil prices. so -- then there are those who say you can strike militarily because it would mean a lot for the oral market. prices with mike. no, president obama has eluded, even in his un general assembly speech recently the other week basically, also talking about the economic in action. he put it exactly that way, we have found that no one has really fill that out. but of the costs of allowinit clear on? then our policy is prevention, and our view, we put out over @booktv number of reports of the last for five years saying, you know, you have to prevent a nuclear iran. the triple track approach of diplomacy, sanctions, and the

military option is a last resort and both presidential candidates , president obama and governor romney have also said pretty much the same thing. last resort. all options on the table. but bipartisan everett, more on this issue than any other issue about the nuclear iran, but is still abstracts to a lot of people about what if we fail? what if we don't do what is necessary? so we are saying, look, if you don't prevent a nuclear run, however you fail, whether it is because sanctions were not tough enough. we don't have a credible military option which we have always called important. the iranians to go ahead and despite our warnings -- by the way, serious consequences, so we just want to enlarge the debate because we have not seen anyone else to it. that is why. >> well, the want a chance to is some questions from you and the

audience. we have people with microphones, so if you can identify yourself and make it a question, that would be great. >> and you will be surprised that i will ask an economic question. if they're is a cost to -- my name is mark, former bush and administration official, but i want to go back to the issue of the cost. you would say that there is a costa in action, it costs action, richard? in fact, whenever the outcome is. could it be that those are already included in the high price of oil at present and, in fact of the extraordinarily high cost that we are seeing have already been factored in by traders because if one makes the argument that there will be other spikes, regardless of the scenarios, traders are already taking that into account and a factor that into the price. my question is, how much additional price to you think will be added then or have of

the market's already factored in the cost of action or inaction to the current price? >> that is a really great question. i will be interested to hear. and in this study we actually made the assumption part of the risk premium was priced ten. it is a whole other debate, how much actually markets have taken into account. it also gets into questions around how much actual spare capacity there is in the oil market to absorb this. the study looks so what happens if there is the scenario and no release from the strategic oil reserve and one where there is a nationally and internationally. i can tell you, my own personal opinion based upon my research. my research suggests that if it

was not for the risk premium oil prices should be somewhere around $85 per barrel. and so about $15 depending on whether you look at wti. right now being priced. not just the a run nuclear issue , although that is the beast elements in the room, but anything that runs the gamut from domestic instability in nigeria or venezuela or russia, everything else included. so, you're absolutely right. i have had to the -- the markets have already taken into this -- taken the risk into account to a degree. however, i obviously prices we will spike if there is an actual physical disruption, and markets will have to press send a higher risk premium if iran does become

nuclear and markets have to reassess our of in which there could be this proliferation and is to be a lot more-intentions, stronger belligerence from iran, a potential concern about pipeline flows their northern iraq, everything will have to be reexamined. >> let me also address that. because with the want to clarify what this report does and does not. the are now predicting. we are saying is coming of the market had the same view we do that we think the price we will move accordingly. i think one of the challenges here carry and we found that the challenge of a group, a diverse group policy people, oil people, finance people, military people and someone, no one is expert in everything. political people often are not as comfortable with the energy in the economic.

we found the market is not fully informed about all of the political issues either. i'll give you an example. what if as we talked about before, they're going to get into weapons. so there were not really aware of that, even though tennis's comments about this for in the new york times article. some people miss that peace. i read everything dennis says. but i am just saying that some people might have missed it in the market. therefore right now some say their is a nuclear iran. well, right now today there is. there is not a nuclear saudi arabia. the probability is you're right now, but if they get nuclear weapons and the saudis a nuclear-weapons, the probability of the nuclear exchange, while still lope is certainly not zero. it is tired. you could say it is 10%, 5%,

15%. you could argue about the probability, but is not zero anymore. what people in the market, things are -- even low probability, high consequence, you could be taking into account , and we see one of the things. here is how the market should move if they understood these probabilities. so we think the report actually is also going -- should inform policymakers and should be informative to the market. and really the main point, the overriding point is to say, look. we really need to understand, this is not just some theoretical exercise. right now this world does not exist. one of the hardest things to do is to examine does not exist. what we want is people need to understand the strategic argument, we hashed it out.

but there are other elements here. economics is one. we want people to really think this through. say, you know, you really need to do -- we need to ratchet up because the cost is significant, i think in the long run. >> to do analysis like this you have to simplify the world. the will to run the numbers. one of the simplifications in this report, world in which ron does not have a clear and the world unless they do. and i think that is an oversimplification because in the real world there is an in-between where iran has advanced so far in the direction of having nuclear weapons and the capability to produce not just one but, perhaps, many nuclear-weapons on extremely short notice gets to the point where for all practical purposes they have their weapons. the world, the international community and their neighbors

would have to treat them as if they add that their weapons, even though they have not done what other countries have done with one to announce their weapon. and, i think arguably we're coming to the point now, the time lines, the mad-to produce material to have their weapons worth of material. a report out yesterday by the institute for science intention national-security. two to three months away from the will to produce the fissile material for a weapon, if that is what they want to do. and maybe be able to do that for one weapon is not virtual the clear weapons capability or virtually the same, but you know, time lines shortened further and they're able to produce multiple weapons, at some point the international community has to treat them as if they already have nuclear weapons. so i think some of the cost that we have to define and this

report kicks in short of them tested in a pair weapon the further they get in that direction of having the capability. >> i don't know. they are wanting to warn. thank you very much for the great opening question. i want to get to a couple more in the front row. >> i am a partner. i am just curious to make your analysis howdy you factor in the uncertainty about the effectiveness of a military strike? because you have already indicated that if there was a military strike, as i anniston what you're saying having not read your report, that there would be a spike up in the short term and the price of oil. there seems to be almost the assumption that there would be closer to a closure to the issue over iranian military nuclear

capability went to maine fact, there may not be closer. i am curious, was there a lot of analysis about some certainty about the effectiveness of any military strike? >> thank you, and we will take your question. >> my name, jeremy com. i want to test just to get everyone's perspective on how the cactus changes if iran remains a play nuclear threat but as an ashley construct a weapon. my other question was related to u.s. economics. audi you see the u.s. ability to adapt to a more diversified fuel supplies such as natural gas or electric vehicles to back. >> think you very much. >> i will say quickly the cost of a strike. we had to use numbers for

calculating. we assumed that premium, the risk premium in the market today . those assessing because of military strikes. we tried to avoid that. we just had to use some members. >> the sheer cost of the military strikes. >> zero. >> uncertainty around the price of oil. the future. >> you raised your couple of issues. if they're is a closure. there is no military strike that will create an end to this issue any strike we will set the iranian nuclear program back. and yet to think about the implications of sending it back. the behavior of others in the recent -- region. the nsc that iran was set back.

does that then bill their credibility with others to say you see we are quite serious about what we mean. that is an argument for using force. as an option. may come to that. i don't think it's too late that diplomacy succeed, but i do think for it to succeed the economic pressures which are clearly and unmistakably, we have not talked about this, but they're clearly feeling this now in ways that simply have not been true before. currency is being devalued on of very rapid basis. the level of inflation is really unprecedented. we are seeing demonstrations in place we have not seen, at least until recently. and the impact of the sanctions is being felt. it has not expressed itself in terms of changing behavior, but the potential is clearly more than before.

and also agree to a you need that as well as them understanding that if diplomacy fails that the ones to pay a bigger price than anyone else. >> quickly address the specific issues. >> i will try to answer the question on the economics. as i mentioned before one of the surprises and there are poor was out low level in many respects the u.s. still less despite shell of gas and no resolution. not to say that the progress toward energy independence not provide a measurable gains. reducing the vulnerability, but it is still there. even f. in a hypothetical world while it -- or the u.s. had to come completely self-sufficient in oil, the oil markets are globally integrated, and the

spike in oil price was due to something that happens in iran and will drive up prices of error, including u.s. so while -- so while having a more diversified fuel mix in diversifying away from oil and natural gas will definitely see benefits, it is not a silver bullet that will completely solve the problem. >> i want to go back to you. there were making your point. >> the question which i thought was an excellent one, the situation with the ambiguity. i think to my personal opinion, that is actually the most likely scenario. i think that is a law makes the most sense for them. maybe not of a long term, but certainly the near term. the next ten years. the -- and there are historical precedents for that. south africa has six new their

weapons. they never tested one. they just let people surmise that they must have one. they obviously calculated that they achieve the benefits of being a declared nuclear power even without demonstrating or declaring that they had a nuclear weapon. and the other similar analogy is north korea. u.s. intelligence judgments starting in 1996 was that north korea probably have nuclear weapons. we did not know that for a fact until 2006 when they finally tested one, but for ten years there were telling us they're probably have a nuclear weapon. if you're a u.s. military planner or south korean, you have to assume that probably have nuclear weapons and you had to up plan accordingly. for iran to achieve the same thing where all the neighbors in the united states and israelis all have to assume that ron paul has a nuclear weapon, it gives them the benefits they're seeking to achieve without necessarily in during the

international program that comes from clearly violating. >> there is a threshold issue here. if they get to the point where let's just say the saudis as an example, effectively a nuclear weapon state and they say, we have to have it. they're clearly not at that point yet, and so this is at least one of the threshold's to be looking at. >> thank you very much, and we appreciate the great questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> here is what we have coming up for you on c-span2. next, and let the bidding styles of joe biden and paul ryan. and then we will show you the 1988 vice-presidential debate between dan quayle and lloyd bentsen. after that a look at super pak and their effect on the 2012 elections.

>> look at what president obama did on the budget, nothing except borrow and spend. as a result of the president's abdication, as a result of seeing the most predictable economic crisis in our country's history and not fixing it, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we laid out a $4 trillion debt reduction plan over the next ten years. 4 trillion. already passed a trillion of it. ladies and gentlemen, these guys vote against everything. no. i really mean it. not allowed to then i like your plan, okay. i get that. what's your plan? >> congressman paul ryan vice president joe biden will face off in their early debate. abc news moderates from kentucky. you can watch and engage with c-span with our live in a preview at 7:00 p.m. eastern fell by two ways to watch to the beta nine. on c-span both candid it's on

screen and it on c-span2 the multi camera version of followed by calls, e-mails, and tweeted 1030. follow live coverage on c-span, c-span radio, an online at c-span.org. >> and on facebook we are asking was question you would like ast of the vice-presidential debate. log on to facebook dot com / c-span and leave your thoughts. >> four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. millions of jobs were lost. the other industry was on the brink of collapse. the financial system have frozen out and because of the resilience and determination of the american people we have begun to fight our way back. >> the president has a view similar to the one he had when he ran four years ago. a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more, if you will, to cool them afloat -- trickle-down

government will work. >> c-span debate has video of last week's presidential debate. separate clubs of the question so you can search and watched by topic. also the only place you can see live behind-the-scenes coverage of this debate including the spin room, watch engaged with live tweets from political reporters and other viewers and add your own. >> the debating styles. >> from u.s. constitution the vice-president of the united states shall be president of the senate but still have no vote unless it is equally divided. in case of removal of the president from office or his death or resignation, the vice-president shall become president. the office of the vice presidency is an afterthought or compromise, but all eyes on

vice-president joe biden this week and congressman paul ryan as the debate. joining guess here is jonathan martin. how important is this debate? >> well, i think you touched on the biggest reason why this could be more important then be under cars typically are because there is pressure on joe biden to stand and deliver enchains the narrative from what we have had the last few days which is the fact that given president obama's weak performance in denver, mitt romney, for the first time, is seeing a bump in the polls and in some states is pulling narrowly ahead. i think biden will turn that around. put paul ryan in the gop ticket back, but at the same time, the burden is on right to keep the mojo going, to keep romney's

sort of balance alive for at least a few more days until the president and mitt romney face off again next week. that is the biggest reason why this thing. also, one other important point. this is one of the first, possibly the only campaign where one side is really campaigning against the policies of the other party's vice-president. as much as they are running against the other party's presidential nominee. paul ryan and his budget proposals are really a flashpoint in this campaign. i think it is unique in that sense because biden is going to be hammering paul ryan and the gop ticket on his proposal. on a long-term fiscal issue. >> you framed it this way. in 2008 gentleman show debated governors sarah palin wondering in scranton joe will show up for thursday's debate. >> the sources that i talked to on both sides said this is going

to be an aggressive, four leading joe biden, someone that there will want to frame a negative message against romney in ryan. pick up where the president didn't do that well lesley gore didn't mention at all. i'm thinking of issues idea of a bailout, social security, the proposal on that, the medicare issue, the 47%, and that romney made for a stunned obama. and then of course store romney's income taxes. those are all issues that i think we will hear from joe biden on. and it is very different than what biden past four years ago. the biggest challenge then was don't patronize sarah palin. try to afford her a certain degree of respect, and this is a

different time. a very different opponent. >> already been up rebuttal as they try to set expectations for the debate on thursday. let me share with you what paul ryan said on the fox news channel live last month. >> fast on the cuff, which the night. he knows who he is, and he has been doing this for 40 years. you're not going to rattle him. he has been on the national stage. ever-present twice from a sitting vice president. what i hope to achieve is to give people a very different alternative. he is very get the attack. that would the person who leads the debate gets confused about who stands for what. my job is to make sure that they're not confused about what we stand for and what they stand for. >> perhaps the most respected.

lawyer, supreme court appellate lawyer, they guy who won bush vidor. the similarities. >> about the same age. one really good debater. i hope when joe biden shows up, this is one of the best leaders in america. but what he has done is study the tapes, the record, you know, style. and as you know, he's one of the best litigators in america. >> you got lines already prepared. >> i'm not really a line guy. i am more of a gift guide. i am more of like, you know me well. i don't try to be anybody other than a.m. i believe in one of believe. i do what i do, and i believe the policies that we are providing. pursuing. at the end of the day and going to go be me. >> i know you were hoping. >> adelle the key well.

he doesn't do that in debating. he is kind of legendary for this. that is not in this situation. he does not produce gas in these moments. those are what he is off the cuff on the stump. >> and not counting on the. >> no. >> as you listen to that, your thoughts about how the preparations are going for both candidates? >> like the leaves falling to the ground from the trees every fall, and a presidential year, this has become a terminal right where each side tries to play up the debate shops of the other and the rhetoric seems to get arabs. every four years. there is no question that joe biden, 40 years in public life, the chairman of the house budget committee, someone who is a regular, they're both good debaters, both particulate when it comes to making the case this

is that fairly evenly matched debate. it is more even than that of we saw at the top of the ticket with john mccain and barack obama. .. preparation as yes we know playing joe biden in the debate prep and congressman paul ryan in senator vice president biden's debate. what's going on inside there.

how do they prepare who else is guiding congressman ryan an the president. >> let's start with ryan he spent last week and weekend in virginia doing mock debate prep, watching videos of joe biden. he watched biden's debate with sarah palin four years ago. he watched joe biden foreign policy speech from earlier this year. he watched many of the 2007 and 2008 dnc primary debate where biden is on the stage. there's a film review, and there's practice. scrimmages in the case of ryan, the former lieutenant governor of massachusetts has been playing the role of the moderator. and ted olson has been sparring as joe biden. old son has taken on the task with gusto. he got down the mannerism of joe biden as joe biden would say

literally got down the mannerism and he is really playing the role and a staffer in the room told me. thing is a -- there is reading, and there is actual mock debate. the same thing with joe biden. he's in delaware, his home state with chris van hall less than. he did some sessions last month with chris as well. and van he is smart. he knows ryan really well. he's ryan counter part on the house budget committee. he knows facts and figures as well as anybody in the house when it comes to the budget, and i think she the only one to give joe biden a good run. that's how it's going down. >> let me get your reaction to what the vice president said in iowa as he talked to reporters about the own debate preparation.

here is the vice president. >> the debate is, you know, debates are all tough, you know, i mean, you know, you get up there and everybody you're able to sit. i was watching the debate last night you can sit there and say i would have done that or this, and you hear people saying that. nothing like getting up in front of 70 million people, you know, and so all debates are tough. i'm looking forward to it. i really am. the thing about congressman ryan he's been straightforward up to now about everything all the significant changes he wants to make. we have a fundamentally different view on a range of issues. i hope it will be a good debate. [inaudible conversations] >> well, they're going well. what i've been doing mostly is quite frankly, studying up on congressman rhode ryan's position on the issues and

governor romney embraced everything i can see. i don't want to say in the debate that is not completely accurate. and of course, you know, i have been saying to you all that governor romney -- he greece. i want to make sure that when i say the things that i don't have the congress saying no, i don't have that position or that's not the governor's position. and so it's mainly getting the factual predicates for everything that -- not everything but the key issues in other words governor romney has spoken and congressman ryan has acted. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] vice president making those comments last week in iowa. as we wrap up with you, what changed from denver to danville, kentucky in terms of the obama administration and approaching the debates? >> much more aggressive forward

leading joe biden than they many in the president last week. joe biden does has the imperative to been seen as a presidential. he will be more of an attack. the clip you played was the language that biden used about romney embracing ryan and that gets to my earlier point about this is that campaign where the democratic ticket is running as much against the vice president's policy views as they are running against the republican nominee. i think you caught what joe was talking about. they want to hone on the paul ryan budget. social security, medicare and drive the point this week. senior political reporter for political tow is work available online at "politico".com. thank you very being with us. >> thank you. steve. richard is benedetto professor at the american university here in washington, d.c. joins us from florida is robert

wattson a professor from the lynn university which is hosting the final presidential debate later this month. thank you for being with us. >> pleasure. >> i want to begin with you. do vice president debates matter. >> yeah. if i can go back. i liked johnathan's comments. i would simply add to the vice presidential prep or the prosecutable prep for the debates they try to recreate the actual stage that they're going use in the debate to try the make the folks as comfortable as possible. and paul ryan on the attack within that's not entirely a new role for the vice president. all the way back to 1960 nixon was picked as ike's vice president or '76 with dole vice president had been used in the attack role. we need remember in 1996 when doll was on top of the pick and jack was the number two.

huh frustrated he didn't go on the attack and play the role. do they matter? you bet they matter. most scholars say people don't vote based on the vice president. that's a simple pliesic voting. voting for president is complicated calculus. i like tennessee to a bowl of gum bow. a dash of the first lady, we stir in some economic politician and so forth. so and most folks would agree that lyndon johnson on the ticket helped kennedy to win. they the vice president matter for a number of reasons. number one, we need to remember that four presidents have died of natural causes. four were assassinated and richard nixon resigned. that's nine vice president that asended to the presidency from martin van buren to george h. w. bush. they run for the office on their own. and in recent years, the vice presidency has become a dramatically different office

than when was the nation was created. there used to be an old joke about the vice president. they would say mother had two sons one joined the navy and one became vice president and neither was heard of again. fdr's first vice president was famous for saying the vice presidency quote unquote wasn't worth a warm bucket of spit. this this is not the vice presidency today. and in recent

tuned on the vice presidential debate and what biden and paul

ryan is saying probably matters. let me pick up on the point about the debates and the reference to walter. the vice president, debate are relatively new phenomena they began in 1976 with the vice president. do they move the needle do they influence ultimately how voters cast their ballot. we don't have any stuff to show they make -- even when it there have been significant mistakes made by some of the candidates such as dan quail was not able to respond dwight benson's charge that he was no jack kennedy. but the thing is that it's atmospheric, it's continuing the narrative not think about what happened in the last debate with the. the. you have to be able to get back

on the offensive. probably been told a number of things that he's got to say, millions of things that the president did not say, and hopefully they were -- that the needle get bumped by vice presidential debates. >> there a couple of moments we want to look at and get your reaction too. the first from the 2008 debate in which then senator joe biden nominee was barack obama discussing the role of the vice president and also reference to then vice president deck cheney. >> you mentioned the -- more pour than it has in the past. do you believe as vice president cheney does that the executive branch does not hold the founding fathers were wise in allowing the constitution much

flexibility in the officer of the vice president and we will do what is best for the american people in tapping in to that position, and ushering in an agenda that is supportive in cooperative with the vice president's agenda in that position. yes, so i do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there. and we'll do what we have to do to administrate very appropriately the plans that are needed for the nation and it is my executive experience that is parking lotly to be attributed to my pick sep with mccain not only as a governor earlier on as a mayor, and oil and gas regulator and business owner. it is both years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good used in the white house also. >> the interpreteddation of the vice president. >> vice president cheney has been the most dangerous president we've had in american history probably. he has -- the idea he doesn't realize that article i of the constitution defines the role of

the vice president of the united states. that's the executive role. he works in the executive branch. he should unthat everyone should understand that. and the primary role of the vice president of the united states of united states of america is to support the president of the united states of america give the president his or her best judgment when sought and as the vice president preside over the senate only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. the constitution explicit. the only authority the vice president has in allege stand point is the vote. only where there is a tie vote. he has no authority relative to the congress the idea he's part of the legislative branching is bizarre notion and invented by chain now ingrandize the power of the executive and look where it has gotten us. it has been dangerous. >> from october 2008, richard benedetto the style and substance in the exchange between sarah palin and joe biden. >> sarah palin was continually trying to promote her

credential. one of the thing she is been criticized for amid the debate he was not experienced enough. she was trying to polish her credential and pronote the credential as being capable of taking over the vice presidency. and the other hand, joe biden was taking the traditional political root of attacking previous vice presidents of the party of sarah palin represents by saying this was a traditional tactic during that campaign. was that to run against the bush administration. there's some evidence they're running against the bush administration even this time. but the fact is that at that time, it was a tactic to run against the bush administration, attack cheney and show that vice president style did not work. >> robert wattson, sarah palin is on your list that you put together of the worst vice presidential picks along with tom eagle ton, dan quayle, and

joe lieberman. your list of the best pick include hare truman, lyndon johnson, george hw bush and walter monodale. can you elaborate briefly? >> yeah, you know, again as your common at a timers have said, there isn't imperial evidence one way or the other as to whether the vice presidency moves the needle or how much of a role this plays when the public votes. however, i think it is clear that the vice president matters as we talked about earlier. and we had some good picks that have contributed thanks to the ticket. and we had some not so good picks that harmed the tickets. eagle ton was the worst in history in 1972 with george mccorner running as a democrat. back then, the four-day convention. the president would be picked during the convention. not with a lot of drama.

unlike today we know who the nominee is going to be and the convention basically ends up being a four-day long info mecial. we went to the arm wrestling and haggling once the president was picked they would pick the vice president and i had a chance to interview senator mcgovern and they said that back then people spent an hour talking about who the vice president would be. it was a different world. and medicare govern went down a list, in fact, he was looking at people like ted kennedy and a number of folks and he ended up with eagle ton. he asked him if there was anything he needed to know. he said no, he assured him there was nothing there. and after i had picked him t multiple cases of electroshock therapy. that was a double whammy. a double embarrass. sarah palin did bring things to mccain's ticket in '08.

fundraising, for example, he was being outfundraised by obama and the mccain campaign needed wind blown in the sail. it was attracting small crowds. sarah palin was a rock star. when she came to florida there were 40,000 people that showed up. like the rolling stones concert. unfortunately sarah palin proved she wasn't ready for prime time. we know when a person is one heart beat way from the most important officer it matters. we had god and bad. any way you look at it joe biden is good pick. he balanced the ticket geographically by age, number of factors. obama was from the midwest joe biden from the east. obama was older. joe biden older. joe biden experienced. obama not. lbj and kennedy didn't get along. these guys got along.

the number one test of the vice president is on day one, would you be ready to serve as president should the bat phone ring with bad news. everybody agrees that biden is ready. paul ryan, i think it's the mixed bag. on one hand, he brings part of what sarah palin brought, and that was among some younger conservatives among some of the far right of the republican party. he's a bit of a rock star. seen as policy block. a numbers guy, his positions on social social security and medicare, perhaps outside the main stream have resonated very well with the far right of the party who has never been trusted of romney the moderate. on the other hand part of the presence on the trick has been it's been a distractions for romney and that the democrats can make fair game by saying this is a guy that pushed vouchers for social security. it's a guy that set a extreme position on abortion rights. and any time of vice president becomes a topic of a conversation like that it's not good for the presidential

ticket. i think the best example of that is much like the case with mccain sarah palin where palin started making mistake and trying to go rogue and everyone called. mccain had to put her on the short leash. we see that the romney campaign put paul ryan on a short leash, he's backed off some of the earlier comments and playing safer on the campaign stop. i think we're going see a safe position by paul ryan in this debate. because romney is such a strong first performance that game on. the respects are back on. this is campaign even. they don't need ryan getting the romney campaign in trouble over controversial positions on important issues like social security and medicare and abortion rights. >> i want to pick up on the point, we don't have paul ryan in any recent debates but we have him from the c-span video library in a number of con grexal hearings. here is the line of questioning with treasury secretary tim

geithner from february of the year. >> this is frustrating your rhetoric never matches you're action. i'm talking about the administration. i don't -- i don't think that's fair. i don't think it's fair mr. chairman. you're showing us a tbowjt raise tax rates and add complexity. >> when you're -- >> add. the burden of governing tax code. you propose the budget as you know. the fourth one. that's right. you haven't proposed what you said in four budget. that's not true. >> what we said is here is what you have to do to as part of the balance plan if you get e enough revenued in the system to do it in a fair way. what we propose to do is modestly increase the effective tax rate. the top effective rate goes to 44.7% on individuals. not the tough marginal rate. >> not the top. >> the pep assume for the sake of arguing i'm right, but it's been fact-checked a million

times. i know, yeah. the point is -- exactly. the point is -- you're raising effective marginal tax rates in wisconsin nine out of ten business file as individuals. >> we only raise them if you decide to raise them and you decide you would rather not the tax reform. they will raise effective tax reform. >> these things you say '02 not putting your budget. it's the fourth budget. we hear about the happy talk about coming together. we don't see the proposal in black and white in your budget. >> one thing last, we never claimed the budget including a comp pensive proposal for tax reform. we spend as you know, four months working with the house republican leadership this summer on way to get a balance plan with comp princive tax reform that raise revenue alongside substantial savings in

medicare and medicate. and we found in that process, frankly, you were not really there yet. not quite ready. for that reason, we decided thatlet do some foundation laying and lay out broad principles. >> i don't know how to respond to that. >> richard ben as you watch that exchange. what's your reaction? >> it shows you that paul ryan -- excuse me, paul ryan is a policy monk. he is a man that wantss to with details. he wants to in facts and figures. he likes to do that. you can do that as certain degree in the debate you have have to be fast and get them in and make them punchy and get out. one of the things we're forgetting in the discussion of the upcoming debate, there is an incumbent here. the vice president is the incumbent. and therefore in debates, incumbents usually have records who causes -- the mod ray

moderator's job is to ask question that deal with the performance of the person who is the incumbent. we did not see that in the presidential debate because of the fact that jim wanted to keep it wide open. rather than ask pointed questions about what the president has done over the last four years, he asked the question what are your differences between the two things the two policy. what are your differences on social security? and we didn't get that kind of contrast. i'm wondering for the debate moderator this time will ask questions of biden that will cause biden to have to deal with what happened over the last four years. ryan may have do what romney did if the first debate. >> abc martha the moderator of the debate and following the debate last week, the commission on presidential debates issued this statement following criticism of jim's performance in the first debate.

quote, after their answers, the moderator's job is facility a topic on the balance for the fifty minutes before moving to the next topic. the goal in selecting this format was to have a serious discussion about the major foreign domestic policy issues. jim lair implementing the format exactly was a designed and designated announced in july. robert wattson, you were critical of jim last week. will we see a defense this week with martha? >> i suspect we will. if i can quick jump on the previous e comment before answering that. i think we know that joe biden and paul ryan are both tough nosed guys. they can play at take effectively. what's interesting is they are different. i think when biden first took a seat in the senate paul ryan was about three years old. paul ryan has to be careful about looking disrespectful to

someone elder than him. paul ryan tends to be as correctly noted earlier a policy guy. a lot of numbers. it sometimes didn't resonate. it didn't work for obama in the earlier debate. it sometimes doesn't residence nay. joe biden likes to be connect in the gut. likes to talk to the average guy. we're going see two different styles. it was critical of jim in blogs a and commentary. for years people have been critical to took over the presidential debate from '88 on they run it. it was the legal women voters. i'm not one of those scholars or comment containers that was critical. they have done a fab tannistic job. the big question have been fair, i think the format have been legitimate. i think the commission did a good job in picking their moderators. we had diversity and

moderators. several women have moderated several african-american moderated. we have two of the four this time are women. jim is probably no one who is better resume. this is the twelfth debate. he did good job. no one was more prepared, i think than jim the consummate professional journalist. knows the issue. however, his performance was utterly embarrassing. it's hard to say anything good about it. he paused several times as if he couldn't remember romney's name or obama's name. he had trouble remembering who would go first or second. a lowed obama to run over time on a lot of the answer and didn't call him on the time a lotted to the point where sixth group of questions, we basically didn't have any time to get to that. also he didn't call romney several times during the debate if romney will been saying one thing during the 22 republican prepare debates he turned flat around and went about 180

degrees and jim didn't say governor romney this is a new position explain yourself. the role of the moderator is in part to get out of the way and allow the kids candidates to have a conversation and meaningful debate. they are long winded or being disingenuous the role is to police the debate and make sure they're the moderator not allowing obama or romney to moderate. any way you look at it it was a tarnished mark on the jim's wonderful legacy. i don't think she will do this. good foreign nose policy reporter. they are hard nosed. they know the issue. they watch the embarrassment the lehrer. they are going hold the candidates to the questions. if there's an inconsistency with saw with governor romney i think they brick it out. that's the role of the

moderators. >> another moment with the 2008 debate with joe biden and sarah palin on the job of vice president. >> governor, you said in july that you would have someone explain what it is the vice president does every day. you senator said you would not be vice president under any circumstances. maybe this is just going on at the time. but tell us now looking forward what it is that you think the vice vice presidency is worth now. >> okay my comment it was a lame joke. you're was a lame attempt at the joke got it. of course we know what want vice president does. they didn't get mine either. no. no, of course, we know what a vice president does. and that's not only preside over the senate and take that position very seriously also. i'm thankful the constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president also if that vice president so choose to exert it in working with the senate. and making sure that we are

supportive of the president's policy and making sure too that the president understands what our strengths are. john mccain i had good conversation about where i would lead with the agenda nap is energy, independence in america and reform of government over all and then working with families of children with special needs. that's near and dear to my heart also. in the arena, john mccain tapped me and said that's where i want you. i want do you lead. i can't wait to get there and go to work with you. >> senator. we'll get back to education. i don't know any government program that john is supporting not early education more money for it. the reason no child left behind was left behind was the money was left behind. we didn't fund. question get back to athey assume. with regard to the role of the vice president. i had a long talk, as i'm sure the governor did with her principle in my case with barack obama. let me tell you what barack obama asked me to do. i have history of getting things

done in the senate. john mccain would acknowledge that. my record shows that on controversial issues. i would be the point person for the legislative initiative in the united states congress for our administration. i would also when asked if i wanted a portfolio of my response was no. barack obama indicated to me want me with him to governor. every major decision he'll be making i'll be sitting in the room to give him best advice. he's president not me. i'll give my best advice. one of the things early on he olympic picked someone who independent july who wouldn't be -- that is my reputation as you know. so i look forward to working be barack obama and playing a constructive role in his presidency. bringing about the cienld of change this country needs. >> from 2008? st. louis. let me pick up on something we discussed earlier. the role of the vice president and how it change and richard

benedetto's point the vice president has a record to run on. >> yes, the role is changed dramatically. you heard vice president biden talking about portfolio. typical the vice president isn't given a portfolio per se. they -- the point person on several different roles or areas. there are some examples of the portfolio, for example under bush i dan quayle played a role in regulatory relief looking for areas to streamline that process. when bill clinton was president, al gore played a sitting role in reforming the efficiency and drk played role in energy with reaching tout energy industry and so forth. biden played a leading role in the iraq and afghanistan wars and how to withdrawal troops and how to refigure the flow of the war. the vice presidency has changed

considerably over time. case in point, when warren g harding in 1923, when he died in california of heart attack, they couldn't find calvin cool age. the punch line is the -- the vice president would stay home. they didn't go to washington, d.c., in most cases. now live at the navel ab serve story. the first one to do so was walter until the '70s the vice president stayed in the city. so they found calvin in vice president population of 33. there were no major air waves or rail ways in. they found cool his father took the oath on the family bible in the living room. the role of the vice president changed considerably and i think that both i would give credit to romney and obama for picking a

vice presidential nominee that cannot only help them get elected but could help them gerch. i think they are responsible selections in that respect. and i think no matter who wins this. we're going see either ryan or biden play a significant role or the next four years. >> we of course, previewing the upcome vice presidential debate taking place on the campus of centere college. let me share with both of you one of the moment from february 2010 during the height of the health care debate a meeting took place that bare house across the street from the white house and comment by then congressman paul ryan on the health care bill and the vice president. >> the bill has ten years of tax increases about a half trail collars. with ten years of medicare cuts about half trillion dollars to pay for six years of spending. what's the true ten year cost of the bill?

that's $2.3 trillion. it does a couple of other things. it takes $52 billion in higher social security tax revenue and counts them as off sense but that's really reserved for social security. so either we're double counting them or don't intend on paying the social security benefits. it takes $72 billion and claims money from the class act, takes the money from people you knows that are designed for that benefit, and instead counts them as offset. the senate budget committee chairman said it was a ponzi scheme that would make madoff proud. when you take a look at the medicare cut, what it essentially does is treats medicare like a -- it raises a half of trail dollars out medicare not to short medicare solve sei. but to spend on the new government program. when you take a look at what this does, is according to chief actuary of medicare he's saying as much as 20% of medicare's providers will go out of

business or have to stop seeing medicare beneficiary. millions of seniors who are on chosen medicare advantage will lose the coverage they enjoy. you can't say that you're using this money to either extend medicare solve sei and also offset the cost of the new program. that's double counting. and when you take a look at all of this. when you strip out the double counting and what i would call the gimmick, the full ten year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. second one has a $1.34 trillion deficit. the most cynical gimmick in the bill is something we agree on. we don't think we should cut $doctors 21 percent next year. we stopped for the last seven years. we call it here in washington the doc fix. the doc fix according to your numbers cost $. 1 billion that bill was

provision was taken out and been going on in stand alone legislation. but ignoring these cost does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. hiding spending does not reduce spending. and so when you take a look at all of this. it doesn't add up. i'll finish with the cost curve. are we bending it down or bending up? if you look at your own chief actuary in medicare. we're bending it up. he's claiming we're going up $2 20 billion adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have. and so be you take a look at this, it's really deeper than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the analysis. there is a difference between us. and we have been talking about how much we agree on different issues. there really is a difference between us. it's basically this, we don't think the government should be in control of all of this. we want people to be in control. and at the end of the day is the big difference. we have offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year.

because we agree that status quo is unsustainable. it has to get fixed. it's bankrupting family, the government, it's hurting families with preexisting conditions. we all want to fix this. but we don't think that is the answer to the solution and all the analysis we get proves that point. now i'll just simply say this. and i respectfully disagree with the vice president about what the american people are or aren't now saying or whether we're qualified to speak on their behalf. >> so we're all representatives of the american people we do town haul meetings and talk to the constituent. i have to tell you know the american people are engaged. and if you think they want a government take over of health care, i would respectfully submit you're not listening to them. so what we simply want to do is start over. we're going to clean the paper, move through the issues step by step and fix them and bring down health care cost and not raise them. that's basically the point.

>> february 2010. richard ben that was congressman paul ryan talking instructly to the vice president. the president members of the cabinet. in 2008 sarah palin had to convince voters she was up for the job. that's not the case with the paul ryan. knows the issues how does tee translate the knowledge to something people can treat. >> that's the big problem. he has a tendency to be number-oriented and legislative oriented. talks like a capitol hill denson, which she is. he has to find a way to talk directly to the american people and make it understandable to them without using the numbers and all of those offset jargon of offset, you know, sequestration and all of those kinds of things. he has to make it clear what it is that he will do and what his plan will do or not do. one of the things he is able to do, as we ask k see was able to talk directly to the president and disagree with him using his

numbers and facts. he's not afraid to do that. he'll probably cothe same kind of thing with joe biden. but again, he'll probably have to back off on the numbers and try to just make the main principle point that he has to make. the problem here is that in case he comes off -- and joe biden can be joe biden he has a way of personally connecting with people and as a result, he'll contrast himself and if he's smart enough. he'll play off of that if paul ryan gets too congressish. >> let me follow up on the point in 2007 bryan williams asked that the senate joe biden how he would deal with some of the tough questions that would be coming up in the 2008 presidential race when he was running for the nomination. >> joe biden words have in the past gotten you trouble. words that were borrowed and

some found hateful. an editorial in the "los angeles times" in addition to the uncontrollabler have bossty biden is a gas machine. can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage? >> yes. [laughter] >> thank you, senator biden. [laughter] >> from 2007 robert wattson on both points on paul ryan's approach and on vice president joe biden who has been known to make a gaffe or two. your response. >> yeah, well, joe biden has had share of gaffes. what's amazing, i think about biden is this. much like paul ryan and i think john kerry and al gore suffered this as well. you're in congress took and ryan spent his professional life in congress. he was an aid to congress before

he became a member of congress. they tend to speak? congress speak. legislate tees and regular folks don't understand that. i think we're going hear that same quote from paul ryan directed at biden indirectly at obama during the debate. paul ryan cannot talk about actuary and cost curve. our eyes roll back in our head and it sounds like a economic professor. he has to put in a different way. he tends to be wonkish like that. what is crin edible about him he spent his professional life in the congress and the senate, biden has a way of connecting with people and speaking in a way that the average person understands. and he makes that gut level connection. joe biden i guess the virtue advice to providen is the same. he's likable. you know, everyone in the senate if there's no media around republican and democrats will tell you that biden is one of the most favorite members of the

entire chamber. the beauty and virtue of biden he doesn't use a tell prompter. he's fresh he's real. being fresh and real these days, you know, all intrusive media coverage he occasionally says something wrong. iltd say the gaffe machine per se. he has handled some of these gaffes reasonably well. for example in '08, he made that comment about barack obama trying to compliment obama but be it was perhapses with some people thought to be racist overtones he call them a clean and articulated african-american something to that effect. but nobody whatever suggests joe biden hair harbored any ill will toward any group of folks. the record is different. when he ran for president borrowing from the labor borrow one of the speechings when biden was law school and not attributing drought.

he seems good naturered and laugh it off and come back and scranton joe, the guy we know. ditto with the handle of sarah palin in '08. it was a tough order. he ho to unmask her someone who cinchly wasn't ready for prime time. he couldn't be too harsh. he would be appear to be bullying a younger woman. with she said to him, can i call you joe, you know, he just laughed everything off. i think that the clip you showed the viewers was a wonderful clip biden had that sense comic timing he said yes in response to the tooer have bose. yes. he said it better than i am doing right here. but i think that the something i come back to is the two candidates have different styles and approaches. it's going to be interesting to watch them. the charge for biden is don't make a gaffe, he's got to come strong and hold ryan and romney accountable for what they've

said. he has to defend obama's position. he has to say something to the effect of bin osama bin laden is dead, generally motors are hiring with and scientist are doing stem cell research. and name case for the president. on the other hand paul ryan has to be avoid being too walkish avoid being condescending which he can at times be. but he's got stay on the attack. and continue to pick up are romney very effectively left off a few days ago. >> of course, the reference to joe and sarah palin vice president in . >> yes. sure. i think that joe part of the debate. it was not. can i call you grow when they were introdisused and both met. >> we have that. let's watch it. it's only about twept seconds. it was the opening moment in the

debate in st. louis missouri. [cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] can i call you joe? >> thank you. thank you. >> and the debate began. yeah. it was that part of the debate itself that it was he made it remarking. he was saying to him before do you mind if i call you joe. he says, sure. it was not -- now it's become the fork lore in the middle of the debate put him on the spot. >> in the rehearsal she kept calling him oh biden. >> one more moment with paul ryan. talking about taxes the deficit and the economy. showing you the style and substance of the vice presidential follow knee from the republican ticket. >> let me creases a few issue

hearing some of colleagues from over side of the aisle saying we just can't afford these tax cuts. well, let's look tat. only in washington is not raising taxes on people considered tax cut. what we're talking about here is not cutting taxes. we're talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax increases. second point, we meaning the government can't afford this. who's money is this after all? is all the money that is made in america washington's money? government's money? or is it the people's money who earned it? i hear all this talk about about the death tax, the estate tax. it's going give a windfall to the people. all themen money going the privilege people who built the pis business, made their money it's their money. which is it? do we have a country built on equal natural rights, where you can make the most of your life,

get up, work hard, take risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, do well, earn success, and yes, pass it on to your kids. what on earth is wrong with that? that's the american dream. and to my friend to my side of the aisle who simply don't like some of the spending in the bill. i don't like it either. let's cut the spending next year when we're in charge. there's junk in the tax code. everybody agrees with this. this is advancing some of the junk in the tax code and what i say to my friends on the other side of the aisle next year let's get rid of the junk of the tax code with we're in charge. right now, let's not hit the american people with the tax increase. if we want to get this debt under control, if we want to get our deficit going down. there are two things we needs to be done. we need cut spending, and we

need to do grow the economy. we need prosperity in the country. we need job creation. we need people going from collective unemployment to having a job and paying taxes so the revenue can reduce the deficit. and if we raise taxes, even the congressional budget office is telling us if this bill fails and these tax increases continue we're going lose 1.25 million jobs next year. do we want to do that? low tax rates gets us economic growth. low tax rates makes us competitive in the international economy. low tax rates allow businesses to plan. is this a growth package? no. it's not a growth package. you know why? because it's still proposes to move this on uncertainty forward. it's two-year extension. we're not talking about pro-growth economic package. we're talking about preventing a strective economic package from

being inflected on the american people. the last thing you want to do is put more uncertain toit economy. hit them with a huge increase have a stock market sell off and lose jobs. do we want to make it permanent you bet. that's what we're going to be advancing. the last thing we want to can is raise taxes, we need economic growth, we need spending cuts, that's exactly we intend on doing and i think that's the message the voters sent us here. so let's prevent this tax increase from happening. let's clean up the stuff we don't like in the bill next year and make sure that when people go to christmas they know they're not going have a massive tax increase five days later. miami speaker, this is a tbhail -- bill necessary to prevent our economy from getting worse inspect is not a bill that is going to turn it around next year let's pass the policy that will turn the economy around.

>> paul ryan from the floor of the house of representatives. we're going it hear that in some variation thursday night in danville, kentucky. >> con den it quite a bit. sharpen it up. it's rambling. it's not the kind of way you want to hear a debater talk about an issue to make a point. he has to condense it down to about 25 second and make it clear to people. so i think that's the big challenge for paul ryan here. i think it's be able to condense and scrapperren his message each time he tries to make a point or answer a question. >> as you watch the debate here on c-span or online at c-span.org. you have how to score the point the goals ask yourself ask the candidates do what they need to do. did they appeal to the base the republican and democratic base also to the key swing voters with the independent voters, if they control the agenda and ferm exchanges in this case the vice

president and congressman paul ryan the content of the answer can they show leadership where were any zingers or blunders. the opening statement and closing remarks. wattson, your remarkings? >> yeah. i spercht much my 22 year bigged a vote cay for civic education. we learned we were hosting debate we. ed to use it as an opportunity to drive this engine of civic education and involvement, if you will. we'll having mock debate. i had a group of fifth graders. we put together on new semion the presidential. i gave a tour to fifth graders. we doing all sorts of things. who will give round to obama round two to romney or whatever. i try come up with a rubric, a way of scores debates. i looked at things that scholar and public speakers to determine

was a speech or debate effective. do you appeal to the base, do you attract undecided voters, do you deliver a zinger. did you have a gaffe. are you able to stay on the offensive. i came up with the score card something that the students on campus and area high school kids they're able to use it for hosting watch party for the debate on campus. we handed it out and had the students to score it. i'm happy to send one to c-span i sent them to area schools around the country to use so the students can figure out who won or lost. more importantly, what substitutes a good or not good debate performance. >> robert wattson -- professor at lynn university in florida. site of the fourth and final debate in the campaign election year. the third presidential debate. professor, thank you very much for being with us.

>> it's my pleasure. >> and richard benedetto the long time reporter and adjunct professor here at washington, d.c. >> thank you. >> a i are finder c-span debate hub will allow you to keep track of the presidential campaign and the key debates the three presidential and the one vice presidential debate. it's all available on our website check it out at c-span.org/campaign 2012. vice president joe biden and paul ryan meet in the only vice presidential debate tonight. and danville, kentucky. you see the journalist cameras and light on the risers outside the building at certainly college the vice presidential debate is happening tonight. this is where the tv reporters are doing their reports. we had a bit of a technical problem presidents live coverage

begins tonight a preview at 7:00 eastern. the debate at can. your turn to join the discussion with viewer calls e-mails and tweets. all on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. and on facebook we're asking what question could you like asked at the vice vice presidential debate. log on to facebook.com/c-span to offer your thoughts. >> four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. the auto industry on the brink of collapse. the financial system had frozen up, and because of the resilience and the determination of the american people, we begun to fight our way back. >> the president has a view particular similar to the view he had when he ran force year. the gig bigger government, spending more, regulating more, if you will trickle down government would work. that's not the right answer for

america. i'll restore the vitality that gets america wok issuing again. >> the debate hub has video of last week's presidential debate. we made separate clips of eemp qe. you can see live behind the scene coverage of the debate. watch and engage with live tweets from political reporters and other viewers. anded a your own. c-span.org/debates. >> head up to the debate tonight between joe biden and paul ryan. c-span has been looking back at past vice presidential debates. in 1988 dna quayle and debated for an hour and a half at the civic auditorium in omaha, nebraska. >> on behalf of the commission on presidential debate i'm pleased to welcome you to the vice president rnl debate. i'm judy woodruff of pbs "newshour" and top line.

my colleagues on the panel are john of the "chicago tribune," tom brokhaw of nbc news, and rick of abc news. the importance of the debate tonight is undercored by two facts. both george bush and michael said their selection of a running mate would reveal a lot about themselves. based on the history since world war or 2 this is almost a 50/50 chance. candidates are dan quayle, the republican nominee and senator lloyd benson, the democrat. [cheering and applause] [applause] [applause]

>> moderator: for the next finty minutes we'll be questioning the candidates following a format designed and agreed to by represent of the two campaigns. however, there are no restrictions on the questions that my colleagues and i may ask this evening. by prior agreement, between the two candidates, the first question goes to senator quayle. and you have two minutes to respond. senator, you have been criticized as we know for your decision to stay out of the vietnam war, your poor academic record. more troubling to some are some of the comments that have been made by people in your own party. just last week, former secretary of state hey said your pick was the dumbest call george bush could have made. [applause] your leader in the senate -- your leader in the senate bob doll dole a better qualified person could have been chosen. other republicans have been far more critical in private.

why do you think that you have not made a more substantial impression on some of these people who have been able to observe you up close? >> question goes to whether i'm qualified to be a vice president and in the case of a tragedy whether i'm qualified to be president. qualification for the office of vice president and president are not age alone. you must look at the accomplishments, and you must look at experience. i have more experience than others that have sought the office of vice president. let's look at qualifications and let's look at the three biggest issues that are going to be confronting america in the next presidency. those three issues are national security and arms control, jobs, and education, and the federal budget deficit. on each one of those issues, i csh i have more experience than

the governor of massachusetts. and national security and arms control, you have to understand the relationship between a ballistic missile, a warhead, you better understand about e cription and better understand that you have to negotiate from a position of strength. these are important issues because we want to have more arms control and arms reductions. the area of jobs and education, i wrote the job training partnership act a bipartisan bill. a bill that is trained and employed over 3 million economically disadvantaged youth and adults in it country. on the area of federal budget deficit, i have worked eight years on the senate budget committee. i wish that the congress would give us the line -- to help deal with that. and qualification alone are going to be an issue in the campaige